Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

G) Grant such other and further relief(s) as deemed just and proper by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice."

2. It appears that the grievance voiced by the petitioner is as regards illegal construction on the common plot. Learned Advocate Mr. Shaikh for the petitioner submitted that according to the revised plan, common plot is to be made available for plot holders and no construction is permissible on common plot. Mr. Shaikh submitted that though there is no cooperative society, however, the plot holders are entitled to enjoy the common plot as per the revised plan.

3. On the other hand, learned A.G.P. Mr. Ashar appearing for respondent No.1 on advance copy submitted that whether the common plot is constructed upon or not is disputed question of fact and the petitioner may not be permitted to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court to decide such disputed question of fact.

4. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties, it appears HC-NIC Page 3 of 5 Created On Wed Oct 21 02:55:41 IST 2015 that the petitioner has taken out revisional proceedings before the Secretary voicing grievance about the illegal construction being made by some of the plot holders on their plots as also on the common plot.

The Secretary has decided the revision application of the petitioner by order dated 23.4.2015 and in such order, the Secretary has observed that the Collector has not accepted that there is construction on the common plot. However, as regards private plots, as the allegation of making unauthorized construction is there, the Secretary has directed to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

5. It is required to note that the petitioner is not challenging the orders made by the Collector and the Secretary but has made the above said prayers on the allegation that there is unauthorized construction on the common plot. It is also required to note that the petitioner had filed Regular Civil Suit No.23 of 2012 for declaration and permanent injunction in connection with the common plot.

HC-NIC Page 4 of 5 Created On Wed Oct 21 02:55:41 IST 2015

6. In view of the facts stated above as regards filing of the suit by the petitioner making grievance about unauthorized construction on the alleged common plot and withdrawal thereof by the petitioner and also having regard to the finding recorded by the Secretary that the Collector has not accepted plea of the petitioner that there was construction on the common plot, the petitioner cannot be permitted to invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court so as to decide whether there is common plot in existence or whether there is unauthorized construction made on the common plot. Permitting the petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would amount to decide the questions of fact which is not permissible. The petition is, therefore, bereft of any merits. Hence the petition is rejected.