BALAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) ALARMED by the ominous prospect of demolition of the house built and owned by the petitioner at the hands of Respondent-2 as could be seen from the notice dated 2-2-1982 served on the petitioner under Annexure-C, the petitioner has approached this Court to stall the catastrophe. ( 2 ) THE petitioner, in fact, has sought for quashing of the notice under Annexure-C and also for restraining the respondents from demolishing any part of the petitioner's house. The petitioner is an agriculturist residing at gannayakanahally, Hiriyur Taluk. He purchased a site bearing No. B58 measuring 10 yards East west and 20 yards North South from the revenue authorities in the year 1952 and he pur up a residential house in the site in 1952 after obtaining a licence from the Village Panchayat. The petitioner has produced true copies of the licence dated 3-9-1952 issued by the Village Panchayat and the Village Panchayat certificate dated 6-2-1982. He has been residing with his family since 1952. In 1982 a notice was received by the petitioner from Respondent No. 2 alleging that the said house has been constructed in the area earmarked for the road and is also located in government land and, therefore, the petitioner should at once demolish the same failing which action would be taken for demolition of the house. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was well within his rights to construct a house for his living and also for his family and the allegation that the petitioner has put up a construction in a public road is without foundation. It is further submitted that unless the respondents are able to establish by an order of the competent Court that the land on which the house is constructed belongs to the Government and that the construction is put up unauthorisedly, the notice served on the petitioner under Annexure-C is without jurisdiction and perhaps even high handed. ( 4 ) THE learned Government Pleader submitted that Annexure-C is a show cause notice and the petitioner need not be unduly alarmed by the notice and instead he could have as well submitted his objections to the said notice and if any further action had been taken adverse to the interest of the petitioner contrary to law, it is always open to the petitioner to approach the court. But at this stage the petitioner seeking writ intervention is premature. ( 5 ) THE short point for consideration is whether the impugned notice under Annexure-C is warranted by law and whether the threatened action calls for interference by this Court. ( 6 ) THERE is prima facie indication that the petitioner had purchased the site on which the construction stands and that the construction came into existence in the year 1952 under licence issued by a competent authority. From 1952 to 1982 is quite a long distance and obviously the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of his own house built at his own cost for over three decades. If the respondents want to disturb the possession of the petitioner and demolish the building, they can do so only in accordance with law. Whether the land on which the house is constructed belongs to the petitioner, whether the building was constructed by the petitioner under a valid licence and whether the building stands within the perimeter of the public road and whether the road came into existence subsequent to the construction of the house are all questions of fact which require investigation and determination. This Court is not supposed to investigate into questions of fact and especially delve into disputed questions of fact. If the respondents wish to demolish the building, the first requirement is that they should establish the ownership and dominion of the land on which the building is constructed. Even assuming that the land on which the building stands belonged to the Government, it must be further established that the land in the occupation of the petitioner was not sold by the Government to the petitioner. These are all matters to be established before a Civil Court and the relative rights of the parties to be adjudicated by it. Without obtaining a decision from a Civil Court on the question of rights of ownership, it would be hazardous for the respondents to lay an arbitrary claim to the building site in question and proceed to pull down the building taking advantage of the helpless situation of the petitioner. This Court would be opposed to such a draconian action on the part of the State while dealing with the citizen's property. The power of the State is not absolute. This Court would be opposed to such a draconian action on the part of the State while dealing with the citizen's property. The power of the State is not absolute. But, on the other hand, it is restricted inasmuch as it has to act with restraint in accordance with law while dealing with the property belonging to the citizens. Mere arbitrary declaration that the building stands on Government land will not lend legitimacy to the claim of the respondents that, in fact, it is so. When there is civil dispute with conflicting claims to right of ownership of the property, the State does not stand on a better footing than any ordinary citizen. In this context, I am inclined to take the view that Annexure-C which is the notice of demolition served on the petitioner is unwarranted, arbitrary and unsustainable. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons stated above, I allow this writ petition, rule made absolute and quash the impugned notice Annexure-C. Writ Petition allowed. --- *** --- .