IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.1883 of 2007. Date of Decision: 25.11.2010. Shyam Lal …Petitioner Versus. State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No For the Petitioner(s): Mr.Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr.Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl.A.G. for respondents. Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) 1. This petition involves various disputed questions of facts. According to the petitioner the State constructed a road through his land bearing khasra No.5104 and 5105 in Mauza Phati Karshaigad, Pargana Kothi, Raghupur, Tehsil Anni, District Kullu, H.P. 2. The stand of the State is that the road in question has not been constructed by the State but the villagers out of their own funds and State is only, on the request of the villagers, maintaining the said road. It is further the stand of the State that the State has never interfered in khasra No.5104 since the petitioner has 2 objected to the State entering into khasra No.5104. The State along with its reply has also filed affidavits issued by the Pardhans of four Panchayats to the effect that they have paid Rs.10,000/- to the petition as compensation of his land. According to the State there are 21 share holders in khasra No.5104, but no other shareholder has objection to the construction and maintenance of the road. 3. Be that as it may, I feel that these disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in this petition. Therefore, the petition is rejected. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file a civil suit for redressal of his grievances. Needless to say that the petitioner shall be at liberty for purposes of limitation to claim exemption of the time spent in prosecuting this petition for computing the period of limitation. 4. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the rival contention of the parties and merely noted them with a view to show that disputed questions of fact are involved which cannot be decided in the writ petition. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. November 25, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) PV Judge.