The main legal point established in the judgment is that the remedy for encroachment issues lies before the competent civil court and not through a writ petition under Article 226.

Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.

The appellants in the AST are aggrieved by a single Judge order dated September 15, 2014 disposing of their WP No.9252(W) of 2014.

2. The appellants filed the WP alleging that the private respondents wrongfully encroached upon their immovable property and saying that a police report and a revenue report referred to in the police report would support their case of encroachment upon their lands by the private respondents.

3. They prayed for the following principal reliefs :-

"(a) Writ in nature of Mandamus commanding Police Authorities to ensure protection, security to Your Petitioners forthwith;

(b) Writ in nature of Mandamus commanding Police Authorities to remove all encroachments made by Private Respondents upon Your Petitioners land forthwith; "

4. The single Judge order was not produced with the memo of appeal that was presented without a certified copy of the order, but with the leave of court. The certified copy of the order has been produced with an affidavit dated November 14, 2014.

5. The single Judge refused to interfere in the dispute between the appellants and the private respondents recording the opinion that the issues arising out of the dispute should be decided by the competent civil court.

6. Mr. Das appearing for the appellants has submitted as follows. The police report produced with the WP clearly supported the appellants' case that the private respondents wrongfully encroached upon immovable property owned by the appellants. In the face of the report, the single Judge ought not to have refused the appellants' relief on the grounds that the remedy, if any, was only before the civil court. The appellants approached the writ court, because they had no other remedy available before any other court or forum or authority.

7. Advocate for the State has justified the order of the single Judge. He has said that no reason has been given for restoration of the ASTA for stay for which the CAN has been filed. None appears for the private respondents.

8. The CAN has been filed for restoration of the ASTA that was filed for interim relief in the pending AST. The ASTA was dismissed for non-appearance of the appellants on November 17, 2014. The AST remained pending. Finding that the appellants are interested in the hearing of the AST, we have taken it up for final hearing dispensing with all formalities. Hence the CAN has become inconsequential.

9. The police report and the revenue report referring to which the appellants asserted that the private respondents encroached upon their immovable property, and that the reports entitled them to removal of encroachment, were not enforceable orders or decisions of any competent authority; they were mere pieces of evidence that could be relied on by the appellants in proceedings initiated before the appropriate authority or forum or court seeking orders for removal of the encroachment, if there was any encroachment at all.

10. No law entitled the appellants to ask the police to remove the encroachment referred to in the reports. Hence there was no basis to file the WP making the allegation of police inaction. Which authority or forum or court was competent to give the appellants relief was not the issue in the WP. Hence it was not necessary for the single Judge to say that the appellants' remedy, if any, was only before the competent civil court. The single Judge was, however, right in deciding not to interfere in the matter. In our opinion, nothing in the WP constituted a case for exercising power under Article 226.

11. For these reasons, we dismiss the AST. The CAN shall be treated as disposed of. No costs. Certified xerox.