no.4, it appears that several disputed questions of facts are involved in this writ petition. The question whether the disputed site could be used by the petitioner as a road as an easement of necessity cannot be effectively decided in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The judgment reported in (2006) 5 SCC 545 and relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be applied to the facts of this case. In the said judgment, the party had approached the civil court by filing a suit and the civil court had found that the disputed site was the only way available to the plaintiff to approach his property. In the instant case it is seriously disputed by the respondents that the disputed site is earmarked as the 9 meter road in the map. A map is produced by the respondent no.4 to point out that the 9 meter road is only till a particular point and after that the property belonging to the respondent nos.1 and 2 i.e. Khasra No.147 is located. On a perusal of the prayers in the writ petition, it is apparent that the petitioner has sought a declaration that the way shown in the map produced by the petitioner is the only way available to the petitioner to approach his plots and an injunction is sought against the respondent nos.1 to 3 not to construct a compound wall on the said property. Such prayers are normally made in a civil suit filed by a plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction based on the plea of easement of necessity as is claimed by the petitioner in this case. We are not inclined to entertain the writ petition in the circumstances of the case. The petitioner is free to avail an appropriate remedy, if so advised.
