By the Court.—We have heard Sri A.P. Tewari, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Suresh Singh, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. The facts culled out from the pleadings is that the petitioner and respondent No. 10 are brothers. The petitioner alleges that he had purchased plot No. 385 by means of a registered sale-deed in the year 1986. There is a dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 10 with regard to the land in question. Respondent No. 10 has filed original suit No. 270 of 2012. The petitioner has also filed original suit No. 991 of 2012 praying that the defendant, namely, respondent No. 10 should be restrained for opening a way from the land in question for his ingress and egress. Both the suits are consolidated and are pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gorakhpur. No injunction has been granted in favour of either of the parties.

3. During pendency of the aforesaid case, respondent No. 10 filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate making an allegation that his ingress and egress to his shops has been obstructed by the petitioner by the piles of logs/wood being placed by the respondent No. 10.

4. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed an order dated 2.5.2017 directing the Station House Officer to enquire in the matter. The Station House Officer submitted a report dated 27.3.2017 indicating that the private pathway of respondent No. 10 was blocked by the piles of wood placed by the petitioner. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, accordingly, directed the Naib Tehsildar by an order dated 10.4.2017 to take action in accordance with law. Based on the said direction, the Tehsildar passed an order dated 25.4.2017 directing the Revenue Inspector to personally clear the pathway with the help of police force. This order of the Tehsildar was endorsed by the District Magistrate as well as by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate by orders dated 2.5.2017 and 6.5.2017 respectively.

5. Based on the aforesaid order, the revenue officials alongwith police force removed the piles of wood/logs from the disputed place and cleared the way for ingress and egress of respondent No. 10. The petitioner made a complaint to the higher authority and when no action was taken by the administration, the present writ petition was filed praying for a direction to quash the orders passed by the District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate as well as Tehsildar. The petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus commanding the respondents to give back the wood/logs that was taken away by the district administration at the time when the police force came and cleared the way. A prayer was also made that action be taken against all the officials for their unlawful act.

6. A counter-affidavit dated 7.9.2017 has been filed by Shashank Shekhar Rai, posted as Naib Tehsildar on behalf of all the respondents, namely, respondent Nos. 2,3,4, 5 and 6 admitting that the wood/logs were removed on the complaint made by the respondent No. 10. The counter-affidavit reveals conflicting stand of the authority, namely, at one place it was stated that the wood/logs were obstructing the public pathway and at another place it was asserted that the wood/logs were lying on the side of the road. It was asserted at one place that the wood/logs were removed and at another place it was asserted that the wood/logs were shifted and kept on the vacant land and in front of saw mill of the petitioner after clearing the pathway.

7. On the basis of the stand taken by the respondents that they were clearing the road it was found by the Court that the land on which the alleged wood/logs were kept by the petitioner is not a public pathway and the Court by an order 3.10.2017 directed the Tehsildar to appear before the Court.

8. On the issue of the removal of wood/logs there has been conflicting stand between the parties. The stand of the petitioner is, that the police took away the wood/logs from the spot in ques