ORDER : VIJAY BISHNOI, J. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved with the construction of Johad by the Gram Panchayat 30 SSW, Tehsil & District Hanumangarh. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that way back in the year 1991, the Gram Panchayt has allotted a Patta for construction of Johad in plot No. B-42. However, later on a lay out plan of the Gram Panchayat was issued, in which, place of Johad has been earmarked at some other place. 3. It is contended that on 16.09.2016, the technical sanction was granted for construction of Johad under the MNREGA scheme and the Gram Panchayat has started construction of the Johad at plot No. B-42 instead the place earmarked for construction of Johad, as per the lay out plan. 4. It is contended that when the place for Johad has already been earmarked by the Gram Panchayat, the action of it of constructing Johad at plot No. B-42 is illegal. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that he has already filed a representation before the District Collector-Hanumangarh with a prayer for restraining the Gram Panchayat from constructing the Johad at plot No. B-42, but no action has been taken on the said representation. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the technical and financial sanction for construction of Johad in the MNREGA scheme was issued way back in September, 2016 and the period fixed for completion of the work was six months. As per the sanction, the Johad must have been constructed by this time, however, the petitioner is claiming that construction has not been completed till date. 7. Be that as it may, this writ petition involves several disputed questions of facts which cannot be adjudicated by this Court while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, no interference is called for in this writ petition. 8. However, as the petitioner is claiming that he has already filed a representation before the District Collector-Hanumangarh, it is observed that if the said representation of the petitioner is still not decided by the District Collector-Hanumangarh, the same may be considered and decided expeditiously by the District Collector-Hanumangarh. 9. With these observations, this writ petition is dismissed. 10. 8. However, as the petitioner is claiming that he has already filed a representation before the District Collector-Hanumangarh, it is observed that if the said representation of the petitioner is still not decided by the District Collector-Hanumangarh, the same may be considered and decided expeditiously by the District Collector-Hanumangarh. 9. With these observations, this writ petition is dismissed. 10. Stay petition also stands dismissed.