ORDER 1. Heard on I.A. No.962/2016, an application for intervention filed by intervenor who is resident of the colony in question. 2. After considering the reasons mentioned in the said IA, same is allowed. The intervenor is allowed to make his submissions. 3. The public issue raised in this petition is that the colony, by name Arihant Vihar Colony, Vidisha is having an open area reserved for park, within which besides a temple there is a platform constructed on which a deity of 'Adinath' has been installed by the members of Jain community. The principal grievance appears to be is that despite the said park meant for use of all the residents of the colony irrespective of their faith and religion, the accessibility to the same is unlawfully restricted to one particular community, which has constructed the temple and installed the deity. 4. Learned counsel representing the respondent No.5/Municipality filed the reply contending therein that the colony in question is a private colony and, therefore, the Municipality has no jurisdiction to interfere in the same. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that unless the area concerned is notified for a particular usage in the gazetted notification which is not the case herein, the Municipality cannot intervene. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the intervenor submits that lay-out approved by the Town and Country Planning Department, there was an open area reserved for park. The said intervenor has in-fact supported the cause of the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents No.7 to 12 has also filed reply denying the contentions of the petitioner and disclosing factum of dispute on account of certain differences on the question of construction of temple and platform in the said park, which lead to disturbance of peace and tranquility between two communities resulting in initiation of proceedings under section 145 of CrPC in which initially order was passed on 13.5.2015 under section 145(1) of CrPC. However, the said proceedings could not conclude on account of interim order granted by this Court on 17.8.2015 to maintain the status quo with respect to possession and nature of properties. 7. The adjudication of the public cause raised herein is infested with several disputed questions of fact and thus this Court refrains from entering into the merits of the matter. 8. 7. The adjudication of the public cause raised herein is infested with several disputed questions of fact and thus this Court refrains from entering into the merits of the matter. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the rival parties, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner and as well as respondents No.7 to 12 shall prefer their respective claims by way of representations before the Collector, Vidisha within a period of 30 working days from today along with copy of order passed today. On doing so, the Collector shall consider and decide the claims after taking into account all the legal and factual aspects involved in the matter after consulting the Town and Country Planning Department by joining them as party and pass appropriate speaking order on the question as to whether there is any impediment on the usage of the park in question and whether any resident of said colony is denied access to the said park. 9. In case any impediment or denial of right to access is found, the same be removed in accordance with law. 10. In case the Collector decides otherwise, then a speaking order be passed and communicated to all concerned. This exercise shall be completed within a period of 60 working days after receipt the representation by the parties. 11. It is needless to emphasise that the Collector before taking a decision as aforesaid shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to all the residents of the said colony. 12. No findings on merits of the rival claims has been recorded herein and the Collector is free to make decision either way in accordance with law. B. R. Pandey for petitioner; Praveen Newaskar, Government Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4 and 6/State; Ms. Sudha Shrivastava for respondent No.5; K. N. Gupta with R. S. Dhakad for respondents No.7 to 12.