HEMANT GUPTA,J. - (1.) The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court claiming writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to change the nature of the land reserved during the consolidation for the purpose of pond and being used for such purpose even today.
(2.) The petitioners relies upon large number of documents in support of their assertions. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents filed written statement controverting the stand of the petitioners and asserted that the land is not reserved for the purpose of pond as the same is described in revenue record as garmumkin abadi deh.
(3.) We find disputed question of fact arises in respect of the nature of land. Such disputed fact cannot be adjudicated upon in the writ petition without there being findings of facts recorded by the competent authority.;