JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Alok Singh, J (Oral) Present petition is filed assailing the notice/ order dated 23.02.2015 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) passed by respondent whereby petitioner was directed to remove the encroachment from Government / Municipal land. 2. Perusal of the impugned order would reveal that no measurement is given in the notice whereupon petitioner has illegally made encroachment. 3. Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that petitioner has raised construction over plot nos. D 5 & D 5/1, after getting the map sanctioned vide order dated 31.07.2007; Nagar Nigam had kept a dustbin in front of the Hotel of the petitioner illegally; therefore, petitioner was compelled to file O.S. No. 71 of 2010 in the Civil Court, (JD), Rudrapur, suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 23.11.2011; matter was ultimately came before this Court in second appeal no. 78 of 2013, second appeal was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 02.07.2014, in the light of statement made by Counsel for the Nagar Nigam that dustbin shall be removed and shall be kept at a distance of 40 ft. from the hotel of the petitioner. 4. Mr. B.S. Parihar, Advocate for the petitioner, submits that instead of removing the dustbin, in compliance of judgments passed by Civil Court as well as this Court, illegal notice was issued by the Nagar Nigam to the petitioner calling him to remove the encroachment from public land. He further contends that neither in the notice nor in the impugned order, demarcations are given whereupon petitioner has allegedly made encroachment. 5. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for respondent, submits that impugned notice/order may be quashed by this Court. He further contends that after the measurements on the spot, if need be, fresh notice shall be issued to the petitioner specifically indicating therein demarcation of the encroachment allegedly made by the petitioner, giving him time to show cause whereupon petitioner may show cause and thereafter, appropriate decision shall be taken thereon. 6. This is settled position of law that while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ordinarily, this Court should not enter into the disputed questions of fact viz. as to whether petitioner has made encroachment? This can only be adjudicated by Civil Court. 7. Present petition is allowed. Impugned order/notice stands quashed. 6. This is settled position of law that while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ordinarily, this Court should not enter into the disputed questions of fact viz. as to whether petitioner has made encroachment? This can only be adjudicated by Civil Court. 7. Present petition is allowed. Impugned order/notice stands quashed. However, Nagar Nigam shall be at liberty to issue fresh show cause notice to the petitioner, giving demarcation whereupon petitioner has allegedly made encroachment. If such a notice is issued, petitioner may file his reply / show cause within 30 days, after receiving the show cause notice, if any. Thereafter, Nagar Nigam shall pass appropriate order thereon. If petitioner still feels aggrieved by the orders passed by the Nagar Nigam, petitioner may approach the Civil Court for redressal of his grievance. Civil Court may pass appropriate orders for demarcation, to find out as to whether petitioner has, in fact, made any encroachment, as alleged by Nagar Nigam. 8. CLMA No. 2681 of 2015 also stands disposed of accordingly.