JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral) As revealed by Annexure P-33, which becomes appended to CM- 1579-2023 (in CWP-2485-2021), a revenue rasta exists upon khasra No. 264/2. The dimensions of said revenue rasta is 5 kanals and 7 marlas. It is also detailed in Annexure P-33, that the said rasta is owned by Gram Panchayat concerned. Therefore, all the persons, who have any lawful rights to exercise thereons their easmentary rights, but naturally cannot be deprived from their making such exercising(s) thereons nor prima facie the private builders concerned, can make any apposite obstructions. 2. It is also revealed from a perusal of the sanction plan, as is drawn in favour of the builder concerned, that the competent authority, has in respect of the lands concerned, rather granted sanction to the private builder to raise construction but on lands lawfully owned, and, possessed by such builder. 3. The dispute which has emerged in both the writ petitions, is with respect to purported encroachments being made, and/or not being made, upon the above revenue rasta. The Petitioners in CWP No. 2485 of 2021, make a submission through their counsel, that the revenue rasta concerned, has been encroached, upon by the builder concerned, and, that the said revenue rasta, under the direction of this Court, be directed to be opened rather for enabling all the persons concerned, to exercise thereons their lawful easmentary rights. 4. The builder concerned, has also instituted CWP No. 25951 of 2021, before this Court, claiming therein the makings of relevant directions, upon the Respondents concerned, especially for facilitating the furthering(s) of construction activities, as undergoing at the site concerned, and, also for ensuring that the above revenue rasta, as carried in khasra No. 264/2, is not subjected to such constructions, as, appertaining to the above revenue rasta being ordered to be temporarily barricaded. 5. The learned State counsel submits before this Court, that at the instant stage, all the lands concerned, fall within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation, Gurugram, as the relevant provisions, as carried in Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 have been made applicable to all the lands concerned. 6. 5. The learned State counsel submits before this Court, that at the instant stage, all the lands concerned, fall within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation, Gurugram, as the relevant provisions, as carried in Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 have been made applicable to all the lands concerned. 6. Though, earlier thereto, it was also submitted by the learned counsels appearing for the parties, that there was a resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat concerned, with respect to sale or exchange of the revenue rasta, being made inter se the private builder concerned, and, the Gram Panchayat concerned, but the said proposal(s) either for the sale or for the exchange of the revenue rasta, to the private builder concerned, rather may not, as of now, rather be of any relevance, as, (supra) Gram Panchayat concerned, has become functus officio, also when the proposal was not accepted by the competent authority concerned. 7. Nonetheless, the learned State counsel submits, that now no encroachment on the revenue rasta is made by the builder concerned. 8. Though, the above made submission, is made before this Court, by the learned State counsel, but when the truth thereto is contested, therefore, but necessarily requires qua determinations being made of the trite factum, whether any encroachments or no encroachments, are made on the revenue rasta concerned, and, whether such encroachments, as made on the revenue rasta concerned, are permissible deviation(s) from the building plans, as, sanctioned in favour of the private builder concerned, and/or whether the encroachment, if any, made upon the revenue rasta concerned, purportedly at the instance of the private builder concerned, can be compounded or not, by the municipal authority concerned. 9. 9. However, the learned counsel for the Petitioners-Mahindra Home Private Limited submits, that in view of the letter Annexure P-2, appended to CWP No. 2485-2021, annexure whereof, is a communication emanating from the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon to the Block Development and Panchayat officer, Sohana, whereby the asked for permission by the private builder concerned, for temporarily closing the rasta, comprised in khasra No. 264/2 of Gram Panchayat, Behrampur, was granted, but subject to the condition therein, that an alternative thereto path, shall be given by the developer concerned, to all the persons concerned, to well exercise thereons their lawful easementary rights, and, thus submits that the said annexure casts a complete interdiction against the persons concerned, to lawfully exercise their easementary rights on the said revenue rasta. 10. Though, at this stage, since the learned counsel for the private builder, as also the learned State counsel, submit that the effect of the above annexuere is subsumed within the fact of the developer concerned, opening the rasta for exercising thereons, by all the persons concerned, of their lawful easementary rights. Nonetheless, the above made vehement conjoint address before this Court, respectively by the learned counsel for the private builder concerned, and, by the learned State counsel, is not borne out, by the demarcation report, which is appended to CM-1579-2023, rather wherein there occurs a revelation, that the private builder concerned, has encroached upon the said revenue rasta. 11. Be that as it may, yet on the basis of the said demarcation report, this Court rather refrains from making a mandamus, upon the private builder concerned, for hence removing or dismantling the encroachments, if any, as are purportedly made upon the revenue rasta concerned. The reason for making the above conclusion stems from the factum, that the private builder concerned, has received a lawful sanction, in respect of its building plan from the competent authority concerned. As above stated, since under the relevant by-laws, may be bestowing a leverage, upon the private builder to claim for compositions of the deviation(s), as made from the sanctioned building plan, but yet the encroachments, if are purportedly made on the revenue rasta concerned, thereupon they may not prima facie be amenable for any lawful order of composition. 12. If so still the question, which is at large, is whether this Court can yet proceed to accept the demarcation report, rather containing thereins the above disclosures. 12. If so still the question, which is at large, is whether this Court can yet proceed to accept the demarcation report, rather containing thereins the above disclosures. The answer to the above, is that, the jurisdiction to decide the creditworthiness of the demarcation report, hence making thereins the above revelations, is to be exercised only by the statutory authority concerned, which has been constituted under the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994. 13. Consequently, in the larger interest of justice, and, for ensuring, that the private developer concerned, becomes enabled to raise objections to the validity of the demarcation report, but on all legal corners, this Court deems it fit to direct the Municipal Corporation concerned, to forthwith issue a notice, upon the private builder concerned, asking the private builder concerned, to on the basis of demarcation report, dismantle or demolish the construction, if any, which becomes purportedly raised on the revenue rasta concerned. On such notice, being lawfully served, upon the private builder concerned, the latter shall make a reply thereto. Subsequently, the learned Commissioner concerned, shall after hearing all the concerned, inclusive about the validity of the demarcation report, hence make a lawful decision on the said statutory notice. 14. The Municipal Corporation, Gurugram, is directed to obviously issue the said statutory notice, upon the private builder concerned, but within three weeks from today, and, reply thereto shall emanate from the private builder concerned, within three weeks thereafter. Subsequently, the learned Commissioner concerned, shall make a lawful decision thereons, but through a speaking, and, ably reasoned order, and, after hearing all the affected persons, and, within five months from the above motion being drawn. 15. In the meantime, the parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the revenue rasta concerned, and/or, the private builder concerned is directed not to restrain the persons concerned, to exercise their lawful easementary rights on the said revenue rasta. 16. With the above observations, both the petitions stand disposed of. 17. Since both the main petitions have been decided, therefore, all the pending applications, also stand disposed of.