Judgment 1. This petition has been filed, as a public interest litigation, challenging the action of respondent Municipal Corporation and seeking directions that the Municipal Corporation may be restrained from altering/revising the Bassi Sitarampura Scheme and demolishing any construction contrary to the said Scheme which had been approved and implemented on 110.1959, which is still in force as per the averment of the petitioner. It is also prayed that the facility areas, which include roads, nallah, parks etc., may be restored to the residents of the Municipal Corporation. The aforesaid directions have been sought on certain relevant facts which are to the following effect:- 2. It is stated that on 110.1950 the Urban Improvement Trust framed a Scheme Bassi Sitarampura, and published the same in the Official Gazette for which the land was acquired and allotted to the residents, who were 170 in number of that area in the year 1960 to 1962. It is stated that the allottees also deposited the requisite amount and the list of the allottees was published in the Seventh Report of the Petition Committee of IIIrd Rajasthan Legislative Assembly. In course of time the said Scheme took a full fledged shape and it was also developed. It appears that initially the colony was not maintained by any legal and formal authority but a decision was taken in the year 1992 in compliance of Government order dated 19.06.1992 as well as under Sections 19, 54(3), 90, 93 and 94 of the JDA Act, to maintain 35 colonies by the Municipal Corporation. The petitioner was also included in the said Order at serial No. 35. It is alleged that thereafter the Municipal Corporation started maintaining the colony but suddenly in the year 2004 it attempted to revise the map of the colony and although it was not formally revised, it alleged certain encroachments on the land which were earmarked for construction of road and, therefore, it undertook a drive to remove the encroachments on the land, which have been left open for the purpose of construction of road. 3. Mr. 3. Mr. Maneesh Bhandari, Counsel for the Municipal Corporation has submitted that apart from maintenance and upkeep of the colonies, the Municipal Corporation is also authorised and empowered to construct roads in the colonies and in the process if the Corporation comes across any encroachment, it has every right to remove the same and in pursuance thereof it undertook the task of removing the encroachments, as a result of which the encroachments have already been removed and the construction of road was in the process, during which the members of the petitioner unnecessarily interfered and started filing petitions. 4. The petitioner on the other hand has a different story to narrate. According to the petitioner, the Municipal Corporation, in the name of construction of road, has started interfering with the actual physical possession of the allottees who had constructed their houses 40 years ago and the Corporation has sought to demolish even some portion of the houses of the allottees and, therefore, they were compelled to file this public interest litigation, apart from filing suits by the individuals before the civil Court of competent jurisdiction, in order to protect their property from being demolished. 5. Prima facie it appeared that the petitioner sought to object the construction of the road which is being undertaken by the Municipal Corporation and this Court did form an opinion that the Municipal Corporation has every right to construct road and maintain the colony but in course of arguments and after perusal of the writ petition, it could be noticed that the Municipal Corporation has also sought to demolish certain houses, which according to the respondent Corporation is incorrect and cannot be permitted in a colony which had been setup 40 years ago. 6. It needs to be reminded at times that the rule of law is equally and uniformly applicable on all, including the Municipal Corporation and, therefore, the Municipal Corporation in the name of construction of road and maintenance of the colony, cannot be permitted to interfere with the actual physical possession of the residential houses of the members of the locality without due process of law. However, we are conscious that it is not possible for this Court to determine whether the version of the petitioner is correct or it is the Municipal Corporation which is coming out with the correct facts. However, we are conscious that it is not possible for this Court to determine whether the version of the petitioner is correct or it is the Municipal Corporation which is coming out with the correct facts. This will have to be decided by a Court of competent jurisdiction. We, therefore, leave this question open for the appropriate Court to examine and record the finding of fact after appreciation of evidence, which the parties will be legally bound to adduce before the appropriate forum. 7. So far as this petition is concerned, we dispose it of on the basis of the undertaking of the Counsel for the Municipal Corporation directing them to maintain the colony and continue with the construction of the road as per the approved map, which also is disputed as according to the petitioner the map of 1959 is still in existence whereas the Municipal Corporation insists that the map of 1976 is fit to be implemented. We are not entering into this controversy and we only wish to say that the Municipal Corporation while maintaining the colony shall not enter into demolition of any house without taking recourse to the due process of law and in case any member of the petitioner Association is aggrieved of any action of the Municipal Corporation, he shall be at liberty to file an individual case before the appropriate forum in order to protect his property from interference by the Municipal Corporation in any manner, including its demolition. The Municipal Corporation shall also be equally at liberty to maintain strict vigilance on any further encroachment, if it is sought to be made by any member of the petitioner Association and in case it is done, the Municipal Corporation shall also take action against the encroachers in accordance with law. 8. The writ petition stands disposed of in the light of the aforesaid directions.