JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - Heard Sri Sankatha Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.N. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. In this case Suit No. 20 of 1965 (Anirudha Pratap Singh and 6 others v. Gaon Sabha, Village Bakuli and others) was filed. In this suit mandatory injunction was sought for the removal of obstruction in the flow of the Lakha-niya Nala and further for a direction that the defendants may be directed to restore the course of nala by removing soil filled up by the defendants. The suit was contested. It has been decreed on 16th March, 1970 in the following terms:- "The suit is decreed with costs. All obstructions in the nala from south-west corner of plot no. 452 to its north-east corner shown by red colour in map on page 6 of this judgment shall be removed at defendant's cost and the flow of water from nala coming from village Jaimohra to Audar via Lakhaniya nala through plots nos. 452/517 and 450 shall be restored. The defendants are hereby directed not to restrict or diminish the flow of water coming from Jaimohra, going to Audar in any manner." This decree was maintained in first appeal and the second appeal. 3. Now question is whether this decree of the Civil Court can be executed by Civil Court or by Consolidation Authorities. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel of either side I am of the view that under the facts and circumstances of the case the decree must be executed by the Civil Court and not by the Consolidation Authorities. Further the decree itself was of such a nature where Consolidation Authorities could have no jurisdiction. The decree-holders are, therefore, directed to get the decree executed through civil court. As a result thereof the present writ petition is not maintainable. 4. With the above observations the writ petition is disposed of finally, but I refrain from making any order as to costs.