Anil Kumar, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Radhey Shyam Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.B. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel who put in appearance on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) In brief the facts of the present case are to the effect that a Civil Suit for permanent injunction was filed on 28.04.2009 by the petitioner nos. 2 & 3 in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ist, Faizabad alongwith the application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC. The said application for temporary injunction was not decided. In the meantime, on 15.04.2010, the respondent no. 3 wrote a letter to the District Administration Authority/Police authorities and the respondent no. 4 thereafter proceeded to disposes him, hence he approached this Court for redressal of his grievances challenging the order dated 15.04.2010 by filing writ petition No. 3711(MB) of 2010 (Satya Prakash v. District Magistrate/Collector, Faizabad and others) .
(3.) On 26.04.2010, this Court has passed an order, operative portion of the same is quoted as under:- "At the first sight, it appears that it is a case where under some scheme of the State Government, the land is required to be used, but there appears to be some constructions over some portion of the said land, which are taken as encroachment on the said land by the respondents and therefore, direction has been issued for demarcation of the land which belongs to Rehabilitation Department. Though the petitioner does dispute the aforesaid factual position, but dispute of this nature cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondents, he can approach the appropriate forum, may be by filing a civil suit, in which interim injunction can also be claimed. We also expect that if any such suit is filed alongwith an application for temporary injunction, the said application shall be considered, forthwith, in accordance with law.";