Arijit Banerjee, J. - (1.) The dispute between the writ petitioners/appellants and the private respondents pertains to a pond called Mahipal Dighi. Both the parties claim to have reared fish in the said pond. Dispute arose as to which party has the right to catch fish from the said pond.
(2.) The writ petitioners approached the learned Single Judge. Before the learned Single Judge, a report was filed on behalf of the District Magistrate and Collector, Dakhin Dinajpur Balurghat wherefrom it appeared that in view of a dispute between the appellant No. 2 and the private respondents, it had been decided to catch the fish through a third party and distribute yield between the two parties equally. The learned Judge observed that it would be open to the writ petitioners either to accept the offer recorded in the said report of the District Magistrate or file appropriate proceeding before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction to establish their right of pisciculture in the said pond in accordance with law.
(3.) Being aggrieved with the said order, the writ petitioners are before us. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties including the learned counsel for the State. We find no infirmity in the order impugned. The dispute between the parties is of a civil nature which cannot be resolved without proper evidence. The Writ Court is not the proper forum for the same. We find no reason to interfere with the order impugned.;