Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) This writ petition was filed by petitioners way back in year 2000 inter-alia with prayer that action of respondents in demolishing veranda and construction over it which he raised pursuant to sanction of Jaipur Municipal Corporation and Urban Improvement Board, be declared illegal, unjust and improper; and, further respondents be restrained from making any interference in reconstruction of structure on the same old site, or in alternative direct respondents to permit petitioners to erect structures on same old site or direct respondents to reconstruct structure at their own costs and to pay suitable compensation.
(2.) Contention of learned counsel for petitioners is that constructions were raised strictly in accordance with permission of concerned local authorities and inconformity with approved plan. Learned counsel in this respect referred to copy of approved plan dated 27.04.1961 to argue that sanction was granted for construction of veranda measuring 8.6' x 55' and construction of porch of same size over it was allowed to be constructed. At that time there was no buildings in nearby area and veranda was in line with Tholia Building. Respondents arbitrarily demolished veranda. Action of respondents was in violation of Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of Constitution of India. Even a trespasser cannot be dispossessed from a land without following due process of land particularly when in this case possession of disputed property was with petitioner for last 35 years. Per contra, respondents have contested writ petition by asserting that map of construction approved by respondents with size of plot was given as 60'x30' whereas ground coverage is of 55'x32' to argue that construction made by petitioner shows that platform shown in map is on public footpath and land covered by them did not belong to petitioner. It is further contended that sale-deed (Annexure-5) produced by petitioners shows that construction raised on the disputed plot is on the plot measuring 30' x 60' which does not cover the veranda. It is further contended that disputed platform measuring 8.6' x 55' is constructed by petitioners on footpath and it was trespass and therefore it was rightly demolished by respondent.
(3.) Having regard to contentious nature of issues and disputed facts involved, this matter cannot be appropriately adjudicated upon by this court in extraordinary remedy of writ jurisdiction. For deciding these disputes facts, parties would be required to lead evidence for which appropriate remedy would be to require petitioner to file appropriate civil suits wherein relief prayed for by petitioner for declaration which has been prayed for by petitioner, can be better appreciated.;