JUDGMENT : Heard on admission. 2. This intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated 29.01.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court, whereby he has dismissed appellant's S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5888/2002. 3. The case of appellant is that Jaipur Development Authority had allotted her a plot in Scheme No.1-C of Pathik Bhawan Nirman Sahkari Samiti, Bais Godam, Jaipur, commonly known as Greater Kailash Colony and in the layout plan it is shown as plot No.46, situated between plot Nos.45 and 47. But sometime in December, 1996/January, 1997, JDA trespassed over the plot by demolishing the wall and constructed a road. She, therefore, filed a suit for injunction against the JDA and one Subhash, owner of plot No.C-45. And in that suit, ex parte decree has been passed in her favour restraining JDA from constructing any road through the plot. It is in this background the appellant filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5888/2002, for a relief against JDA to grant her 'patta' of the plot. 4. Having regard to the averments made in the petition, the learned Single Judge appointed Mr. Vinay Mathur, Advocate as Court Commissioner to inspect the site and report its status. According to the report of Commissioner, he did not find any existence of plot No.46 on the spot. According to the Commissioner's report, instead of plot, 43 feet wide road was existing there. The report also says that though the main road of the colony is 23 feet wide, but the road on which the appellant says that her plot exits, is 43 feet wide and this road connects the Greater Kailash Colony to Indrapuri Colony. And as per the report, not only plot No.46, even plot No.47 also do not exist. 5. Learned Single Judge, having regard to the Commissioner's report and the claim of appellant for grant of 'patta' of plot which was not found to be in existence, has held that disputed question of facts cannot be determined in writ jurisdiction and advised the appellant to avail the remedy either before the Executing Court for enforcement of the aforesaid decree passed by Civil Court if she is able to persuade that she was divested of possession in breach of temporary injunction order/decree of injunction issued by the Civil Court or otherwise claim alternative plot or damages from the respondents by instituting independent civil suit. 6. 6. After hearing the Counsel for the appellant, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 7. The appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.