JUDGMENT :

1. Whether in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India damages/compensation for alleged demolition of certain constructions belonging to the petitioner done by the State or any State instrumentality can be awarded in the facts of this case, is the issue, which engages our attention in this petition.

2. Heard Shri Sudeep Seth, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Sridhar Awasthi, for the petitioner, learned counsel representing the Union of India/Railways and learned counsel representing the State-respondents and perused the records available before us on this writ petition.

3. The petition has been filed with the allegation that certain constructions existing on khasra plot no.1689 (New No.163) situate in Tehsil-Rudauli, District-Ayodhya were demolished by the Railways authorities on 27.09.2019 without giving any show cause notice or prior information to the petitioner, that too, in his absence. It has been argued by the learned Senior Advocate, Shri Sudeep Seth representing the petitioner that on account of illegal demolition undertaken by the respondents, the petitioner has been deprived of his right of property to use the same in derogation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Further submission is that the petitioner was never issued any notice prior to demolition; neither any proceedings under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 were undertaken, nor have the respondents followed the provisions of Railways Act, 1989 and the Indian Railways Court for Engineering Department. It has, thus, been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by resorting to illegal demolition existing on khasra plot no.1689 (New No.163) the respondents have since breached Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution of India and such action is also in defiance of the constitutional right of the petitioner and enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India as the same is completely arbitrary, hence they are liable to be saddled with compensation and damages to be paid to the petitioner to the tune of Rs.50 lakh.

4. The facts, which have been narrated in the writ petition, are that khasra plot nos.1689 and 1688 (New Nos.163 and 164 respectively) have been inherited by the petitioner from his ancestor where he has made certain constructions and have been earning rent by leasing out the building to various tenants which is his only source of livelihood and by undertaking demolition respondents have thus unlawfully deprived the petitioner of his fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. It has, thus, been argued that since it is a case where constitutional rights of the petitioner have been infringed by the respondents by demolishing the construction belonging to him, hence even under public-law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the respondents can be held liable to pay compensation/damages.

5. The petition, however, has been opposed by the learned counsel representing the respondents, who have submitted that the writ petition is highly misconceived for the reason that even if the assertions made by the petitioner are assumed to be correct, it will not be possible for this Court to award damages/compensation to the petitioner in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Submission on behalf of the respondents, thus, is that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed at its threshold.

6. Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel representing the respective parties.

7. The first and foremost question, which falls for determination of this Court in these proceedings, is as to whether for the prayers made in the writ petition this Court ought to exercise its jurisdiction, which necessarily is discretionary, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, we find that there are two legal impediments before the petitioner which are to be sailed acr