ORDER : Per, Kuldeep Mathur, J. Instant Public Interest Litigation petition has been filed with the following prayers:- “It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that the writ petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs and by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction, (i) The encroachment on the land situated in Khasra no. 828 - Pal, 829 - Peta, 871 - Charagah, 801 - Peta 4053 - Rasta, 4054 - Nala, 3361 - Education Department, 3370 – Education Department, 3371 - Education Department, 3372 - Banjarusar, 3070 - Rechha, 2976 - Nala, 2960 - Nala, 3194- Banjarusar, 3332 - Bara, 3222 - Chahi, 3223 - Bada, 3359 - Banjarusar, 3367 - Nala, 3368 - Nala, 2872 - AA. Cha, 2839 - Nadi, 3331 - Bada, 6012/3194 - LaghuUdyog, 2979 - Banjarusar of village Kuraj, Tehsil Railmagra (details of which has been mentioned in the Annexure 1 and Annexure - 2 of the writ petition) may kindly be ordered to be removed. (ii) That the concerned authorities may kindly be ordered to the remove the encroachers from the land in question which is Charagah, Nala, River, BilaNaam as well as recorded in the name of few government department strictly within a period of 3 months. (iii) Any other order favorable in the interest of justice towards the public may also be passed.” 2. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in village Kuraj of District Rajsamand, private respondents and certain other persons have encroached over some public land which were recorded as Nala, Bada and Chahi etc. in the revenue records. Learned counsel submitted that despite various representations submitted by the petitioner, no action whatsoever has been taken by the government officials for removal of encroachment from the public land. It was prayed that appropriate directions may be issued to respondents Nos.1 to 5 to take appropriate action for removing encroachments made by the private respondents over the public land. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents- State stated that the disputed question of facts are involved in the present PIL petition and as such, the same is not a proper remedy for ventilating the grievances of the petitioner. The rights of private respondents are, therefore, required to be adjudicated in other forums like Revenue/Civil Court. 4. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents- State stated that the disputed question of facts are involved in the present PIL petition and as such, the same is not a proper remedy for ventilating the grievances of the petitioner. The rights of private respondents are, therefore, required to be adjudicated in other forums like Revenue/Civil Court. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents- State further contended that the Tehsildar Railmagra, District Rajsamand has already passed order (s) under Section 91 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 against the private respondents who are alleged to have made encroachments over the public land. Learned counsel submitted that after examining the reply/response submitted by the private respondents and other individuals who have made encroachments over the public land, appropriate steps in conformity with law shall be taken against them for removal of encroachments over the public land. 5. Having gone through the record of the case, this Court finds that proceedings under section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 has been initiated/finalised by the official respondents against the persons who have been found to be in illegal possession of government/public land. In the prima facie opinion of this Court, the dispute with regard to title/long possession over a particular piece of land being a disputed question of facts, cannot be gone into by this Court. We are, therefore, not inclined to accept the prayers made by the petitioner in the present writ petition (PIL). 6. In that view of the matter, the present writ petition (PIL) is disposed of with a direction to the respondents Nos.2 to 4 to make an enquiry for removal of encroachment from the public land. It is however made clear that the persons, who are alleged to be encroachers shall be afforded an opportunity of hearing in conformity with the principles of natural justice and fair play by the official respondents. 7. No order as to costs.