R.A.Sharma, J. - (1.) BEING aggrieved by the orders dated 23 -7 -1993 and 31 -12 -1994 directing the petitioner to remove unauthorised construction and stop any further construction forthwith, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. It is admitted that the above orders have been passed under sub -section (1) to Section 27 of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. Against such orders appeal lies under sub -section (2) of the same section, which is efficacious remedy.
(2.) IT is true that the question of alternative remedy of appeal was not taken when the writ petition was filed in January 1995, but the question as to whether the petitioner has made constructions in accordance with the map sanctioned by Haridwar Development Authority, Haridwar, has seriously been disputed and the disputed question of fact like one involved in the instant case can not be decided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For such disputes an appeal under sub -section (2) of Section 27 is most efficacious remedy. This writ petition is accordingly liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. For the reasons given above the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. The appeal under sub -section (2) of Section 27 of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 may be filed within two weeks from today alongwith certified copy of this order and such appeal if filed shall be decided in accordance with law and will not be dismissed on the ground of limitation. A certified copy of this order be given to the learned Counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges within three days.;