MISRA, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ order or direction to the respondent-Rajasthan Housing Board to grant benefit of its own policy decision to the petitioner, published in the daily newspaper dated 17. 3. 1988 and to act accordingly. He has further prayed that the land belonging to the petitioner bearing Khasra No. 157 measuring 5 Biswas of land situated in village Sukhalpura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur was not included in the notification for acquisition and therefore it should not be interfered with by the respondents and they should be restrained from dispossessing the petitioner from this land as he is the lawful owner of this area of land.
(2.) THE petitioner's specific case is that although large parts of land in the adjoining area were notified for acquisition under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1953, this area of land measuring 5 biswas in Khasra No. 157 was not notified either under Section 5 or Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act meaning thereby that this piece of land was never acquired. It is on this averment that the petitioner states that this area of the land should not be touched upon either by the respondent-State or by the Rajasthan Housing Board and, therefore, he has prayed that an order restraining the respondents from interfering with this land should be passed. It has further been submitted that the State Government has taken a policy decision in regard to this piece of land also alongwith other parts of land to the effect that the possession of the owners would not be disturbed from these chunks of land. A show cause notice was issued earlier in this matter and after service of notice on the respondents, this matter has been listed now. The counsel for the petitioner Mr. Narendra Jain with excessive zeal and vehemence has submitted that this court ought to entertain this writ petition believing the case of petitioner on facts that 5 Biswas of land was never acquired by the State Government and, therefore, an order should be passed restraining the respondents from dealing with this piece of land in any manner. It is his further submission that in view of the order passed by the respondents taking a decision to leave this land intact, this should not be touched upon by the respondents in any manner. It is apparent that the petitioner's advocate is contending that this piece of land was never a part of the acquisition proceeding and hence the possession of this piece of land remained with him although. This obviously is a question of fact which will require evidence and in a writ jurisdiction it is not possible to permit the parties to lead documentary evidence and record a finding that it was not the part of acquisition and that the possession was never delivered to the respondent-State. On the face of it, there is no material before this Court to infer that this piece of land was not a part of the acquisition. This clearly would require cogent evidence and from the very nature of the prayer which the petitioner has incorporated in the writ petition, it is crystal clear that he is practically seeking an order of injunction in his favour against the respondent-State to the effect that this piece of land should not be interfered with by the respondents and that the respondent-State should be restrained from interfering with the ownership and possession of the petitioner on this land. The prayer, therefore, is that an order practically in the nature of injunction should be granted in favour of the petitioner by issuing necessary direction in this writ petition which is difficult to grant for even if the petitioner is having a good case on merit, based on facts, no relief can be granted by entertaining a writ petition. It is next contended by the petitioner's advocate that in view of the policy decision of the State, which goes to the benefit of the petitioner, the respondent-State has decided not to interfere with the land of the petitioner and the same is fit to be implemented with the assistance of this Court by issuance of a writ.
(3.) IN my opinion this submission is absolutely devoid of substance as this Court under its writ jurisdiction cannot be expected to direct the respondent-State that a particular policy decision should be forthwith implemented in favour of the petitioner as if it were an award passed without contest. Perhaps it needs no reiteration that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of INdia cannot be expected to function as an executing court nor it can be expected to direct the respondent- authority to execute its own policy decision as if it had statutory force. For all these reasons no relief can be granted to the petitioner by this Court to the effect that the land in question should be left intact from interference by the Rajasthan Housing Board. If the respondent State has decided in favour of the petitioner not to interfere with the land as asserted by the petitioner's advocate, it is difficult to understand why the petitioner is not withdrawing this writ petition. However, if such a decision has been taken, that ofcourse will be a matter of mutual settlement between the parties and the petitioner can avail the benefit of that order out of the Court but in so far as direction or issuance of writ in this regard is concerned, it cannot be entertained. Hence this writ petition is dismissed. .;