JUDGMENT 1. 1. This writ petition has been filed, ostensibly in public interest, at the instance of the petitioner, Jai Singh Rajput, alleging that respondent No. 3 Lallu Ram Bunkar has encroached upon the land in Village Jetpura Khinchi, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur comprising an area of 256 Sq. yards. According to the petitioner, the said land was ear-marked for setting up a school and at one point of time a school was running on the said land. It was stated on behalf of the petitioner that as the land specified for running a school was encroached by respondent No. 3, the petitioner, in order to safeguard the public interest, has filed this writ petition so that the land belonging to the school may not be usurped by the respondent No. 3. 2. A show cause notice was issued to the respondents on the aforesaid averment of the petitioner. In response, the counsel for respondent No. 3, states that respondent No. 3 is not an encroacher, for, this land was in occupation of his forefathers whereupon he has built his residential house. However, as his possession was disturbed by the villagers, including the petitioner, by setting up a false case that the land in question is a public land, he was compelled to file a civil suit bearing No. 10/06 before the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), which is still pending. 3. From the aforesaid facts it is obvious that the land in question is a subject matter of civil dispute wherein it will have to be decided whether the respondent No. 3 is a bona fide holder of title and in rightful possession of the land in question, or he is an encroacher. This will require adducing of evidence by the plaintiff-respondents as also the defendants who have been impleaded in the suit. The counsel for the petitioner, however, has sought to explain and assert that the land in question is admittedly a public land which is refuted by the respondents' counsel. 4. This will require adducing of evidence by the plaintiff-respondents as also the defendants who have been impleaded in the suit. The counsel for the petitioner, however, has sought to explain and assert that the land in question is admittedly a public land which is refuted by the respondents' counsel. 4. It can thus be safely interred that the question of title to this land is required to be adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction as the issue of title cannot be decided by entertaining a writ petition by way of public interest, for, this court cannot record a finding of fact regarding the title and possession of any claimant including that of the respondent No. 3 or the petitioner. Hence, this matter cannot be treated as a public interest litigation. 5. Besides this, if the petitioner was confident that the land in question is a public land, he was not without a remedy, for, he could have moved the competent authority under the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964, where a summary proceeding could have been initiated for considering whether the respondent No. 3 is an encroacher on the land in question, so that he could be evicted by way of a speedy remedy provided under the said Act. In so far as this writ petition, by way of public interest is concerned, it cannot be entertained in view of contradictory stand taken by the respective parties. 6. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with liberty to the parties to approach a court of competent jurisdiction for adjudication of the dispute of title in regard to the disputed land.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******