A. K. SIKRI, J. ( 1 ) THE main prayer made in this writ petition is to the following effect: " (I) Issue Rule Nisi against the respondent calling upon them as to why a writ of mandamus may not be issued against the respondent restraining them from any construction/demolition activity over the land bearing Khasra no. 82 without providing a Rasta to the petitioners and other co-villagers. " ( 2 ) AS is clear from the aforesaid prayer, the petitioners case in this writ petition is that they and other co-villagers had been using rasta from the land bearing Khasra No. 82 belonging to Gaon Sabha, which is the only way of access to their lands since long. Plot bearing Khasra No. 82 was declared a Johar land in the Consolidation proceedings held in the year 1954. Farmers of this village and other villagers are using this land for access to their agricultural land and to take their bullock cart, Tractor, trollies and other agricultural equipments. It is stated that in the year 1989, the respondent no. 5 i. e. Gaon sabha in order to protect its land in Khasra no. 82 started construction of boundary wall. The villagers raised objection to the construction of this boundary wall as they apprehended that in that event their ingress and egress to their agricultural lands would be stopped. They made complaint to the then SDM/ Revenue Assistant. Report of the patwari was called for and he submitted his report dated 17. 1. 1989 stating that land bearing Khasra No. 82 belonged to Gaon sabha and it was Johar land. This report was confirmed by Tehsildar who stated that as per the report of Patwari Halqua, the land was being used as Rasta by the villagers for last many years. Application dated 11. 3. 1991 was also filed before the SDM and on this application, SDM passed the following order: "ae to ensure that a passage of about 25 ft. be allowed to the villagers for approaching their fields. " ( 3 ) THE petitioners claim that ever since the said land is used as Rasta. However, in the month of May/june,. 2002, the respondent no. 4, namely, Director, Directorate of education, constructed a boundary wall on the land bearing Khasra No. 82 resulting blockade of Rasta used by the villagers. It is further stated that the respondent no. " ( 3 ) THE petitioners claim that ever since the said land is used as Rasta. However, in the month of May/june,. 2002, the respondent no. 4, namely, Director, Directorate of education, constructed a boundary wall on the land bearing Khasra No. 82 resulting blockade of Rasta used by the villagers. It is further stated that the respondent no. 4 was now raising further construction/demolition activity over the said land and in these circumstances, present petition is filed with afore-mentioned prayer. It may be mentioned that the petitioners have also stated about the order passed by Civil Judge in the Suit no. 404/2002 which was filed by the respondents 7 to 11 i. e. other villagers and it is alleged that the said suit was filed without the knowledge of the petitioners and the- order passed therein is not binding on the petitioners. This aspect shall be dealt with at the appropriate stage in detail. ( 4 ) MR Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that in view of the aforesaid position wherein way back in the year 1991, 30 ft Rasta on the north side of the plot in question and 16-1/2 ft on the South side of the said plot was left to be used as Rasta for the villagers, the respondents could not construct boundary wall thereon and block the ingress and egress of the petitioners. It was submitted that there is no other Rasta apart from this. He also referred to the proceedings and orders of sdm, note of which has already been taken above. ( 5 ) BEFORE dealing with this contention, let us take some more stock appearing from the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents. ( 6 ) THE land in question over Khasra No. 82 has been allotted to the respondent no. 4 for the construction of a School. Order dated 22. 9. 1992 was passed by the Additional district Magistrate-cum-Director Panchayats in this behalf whereby land measuring 17 bighas 7 biswas at Khasra No. 30/2 (4-1), 131/2 (4-8), 132 (4-16), 137/2 (4-2) of village ibrahimpur of gram sabha land measuring 26 bighas and 6 biswas out of the Khasra No. 82/ 26-6 of village Barwala for opening of a senior secondary school was allotted to the respondent no. 4. On this land a coeducational school is running where approximately 280 children are studying. 4. On this land a coeducational school is running where approximately 280 children are studying. The construction is a semi-pucca structure. In criminal Writ Petition no. 720/99 entitled farida and Ors. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, which was a public Interest Litigation a division Bench of this Court passed an order dated 19. 7. 2001 directing that all schools must have complete boundary wall so that unscrupulous elements do not enter the school premises and children s security is not compromised. It is stated that because of the aforesaid orders and even otherwise to protect the land, the respondent no. 4 decided to construct the boundary wall over the disputed area as well. However, it is mentioned that boundary wall could not be constructed earlier because of some obstructions created by some individuals. On the request of assistant Director of Education (Land), demarcation was done on 12th June,2002 but as two individuals were still raising a dispute, another demarcation was done on 23rd july,2002. The villagers also had a meeting with the Block Development Officer, the principal and other officers and it was clearly stated that the individuals who were claiming a right of passage from the school land, are not the villagers but the colonizers and no right of way should be given to the colonizers as there was no right of way in the revenue records in the land in question. The respondents have filed the demarcation reports which are as under: "village Khasra no. 82 Today on 23. 7. 2002, as per programme, SDM narela, BDO Alipur and from the side of directorate of Education, Principal of the School and from the PWD concerned Executive Engineer and those whose land is adjacent to Khasra no. 82 are present. In their presence khasra No. 82 is again identified and demarcated and explained. The above- mentioned departmental representatives and owners have been satisfied at the spot. None has given any objection and the work of identification/demarcation is over. While demarcating the land in question, no difficulty was faced. Report is submitted. "xxxxxxxxxxx "sh. Chanderbhan and Sh. Bhim Singh ji informed that this rasta is not required by the villagers but by the colonizers and that it may not be appropriate to give the said rasta by reducing the land of the school. S. D. M. Sahib also agreed with this. Report is submitted. "xxxxxxxxxxx "sh. Chanderbhan and Sh. Bhim Singh ji informed that this rasta is not required by the villagers but by the colonizers and that it may not be appropriate to give the said rasta by reducing the land of the school. S. D. M. Sahib also agreed with this. "xxxxxxxxxxxx "in the presence of all the above- mentioned officials and villagers, the land in question has been identified and on enquiry it is found that from this land there is no right of way (rasta) available in the records. No public interest is involved in giving rasta. The school land is fully in possession of the directorate of Education. Demand by one or two persons, who are asking for rasta, is unjustified. " ( 7 ) THEREAFTER construction work started. However, respondents 6 to 10 filed a Civil suit before the Civil Judge and also prayed for temporary injunction which was refused by the learned Civil Judge vide Order dated 12. 9. 2002. They even filed an appeal there against which was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide order dated 10. 10. 2002. It is stated that after dismissal of the appeal the respondents have already constructed the boundary wall and it is almost at the completion stage. It is also mentioned that one Smt. Saroj Kumari filed cwp. No. 991/2003 in this Court which was also dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file civil Suit by order dated 7th February,2003. In these circumstances, it is stated that the petitioners have no right to seek any relief. ( 8 ) FROM the factual matrix noted above, it is clear that it is an admitted position that land in question was allotted to respondent no. 4 school. It is also an admitted position that although SDM passed order dated 11. 3. 1991 stating that land in question would be used as rasta, no entry was made in the Revenue records. Demarcation proceedings are also complete and in these circumstances, it has come on record that from this land, there is no right of way/rasta available in the record and no public interest was involved in giving rasta. Land in question is in possession of directorate of Education. It is also not in dispute that construction of boundary wall was started in May-June,2002 as per the petitioners own averments. Land in question is in possession of directorate of Education. It is also not in dispute that construction of boundary wall was started in May-June,2002 as per the petitioners own averments. However, the petitioners did not take any steps for stopping the construction at that time. In this context, filing of suit by the respondents 6 to 10 becomes relevant. The petitioners, it appears, were awaiting the outcome of the proceedings in the said suit. I am inclined to draw such an inference not only from the conduct of the petitioners in not approaching the Court earlier but also from the fact that petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 6 are brothers. ( 9 ) IN this background, let us examine the orders passed by the Courts below in the Civil suit preferred by the respondents 6 to 10. The application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 was dismissed by learned Civil Judge vide order dated 12. 9. 2002 by observing as under: "6. I have heard Ld. CI. Sh. O. P. Sharma for the plaintiffs along with pltff. No. 4 in person and Cl. Sh. Ashish Sharma for deft. No. 2 and 3 and Sh. P. K. Dubey for deft. No. 1, 4, 5. I have also considered the record. It is well settled legal position that injunction is granted to the pltffs on the basis of three considerations i. e. prima facie case, balance of convenience andirreparable loss. Further the injunction is granted on the establishment of well defined legal claim or rights. According to the plaintiffs, they have been using Rasta over the land of Khasra No. 82 since long. This fact has been disputed by the defts. who are bhumidar and actual holders of the land in question. Admittedly the land stand in possession of Education department and a School has been constructed there upon. According to gaon Sabha who is the bhumidar of the land and copies of the official records filed, it is clear that no Rasta as alleged by the pltffs. specifically existed at the place as the same has not been reflected in the official records especially as Chijra. Also according to the report of meeting held on 23. 7. 2002, no Rasta existed through the School in question. I have also considered the application moved to Sh. R. S. Yadav Ld. SDM and noting dtd. 11. 3. 91. specifically existed at the place as the same has not been reflected in the official records especially as Chijra. Also according to the report of meeting held on 23. 7. 2002, no Rasta existed through the School in question. I have also considered the application moved to Sh. R. S. Yadav Ld. SDM and noting dtd. 11. 3. 91. The said noting has not been assertive in nature and cannot be termed as an order passed after due consideration. Simply, it was instructed for the A. E. to ensure passage of about 25 feet to the villagers. In view of the records placed on record by the defts, the noting of SDM dt. 11. 3. 91. cannot be given preference. Pltffs have also failed to convince the court as to under what provisions and powers the Ld. SDM has ensured the leaving of Rasta in favour of the plaintiffs. The main question in controversy between the parties is about the existence of Rasta over Khasra No. 82 which is in exclusive possession of School authorities. Pltffs have failed to bring on record any prima facie concrete and legal evidence on the record to justify their claim of Rasta over the land in question. Further, it is clear from the plaint that the construction of boundary wall is already complete. It has also been shown in the photographs filed on behalf of D-2 and 3. In case the injunction prayed for by the plaintiffs is granted at this stage, it would amount to decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs without taking evidence. The relief of permanent injunction has already become infructuous since admittedly the alleged Rasta has already been blocked by. the construction of the boundary wall by the school authorities. ( 10 ) IN view of these circumstances the prima facie case and balance of convenience lies in favour of D-2 and 3 because if the injunction is granted it would certainly disturb the atmosphere and working of the school. ( 11 ) APPEAL preferred against this order was also dismissed by learned Senior Civil Judge vide order dated 10. 10. 2002. ( 11 ) APPEAL preferred against this order was also dismissed by learned Senior Civil Judge vide order dated 10. 10. 2002. While dismissing this appeal the learned Senior Civil Judge held that: "the perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned Trial Court dismissed the application for the following three reasons:- (l) the revenue record does not show any Rasta; (2) No Rasta was granted by the SDM as there is no such order nor the power of the SDM to grant such Rasta has been shown; (3) the boundary wall has already been constructed. " ( 12 ) IT would be significant to state that the contentions raised in this writ petition and the documents relied upon are identical as of aforesaid suit before the Civil Court. ( 13 ) IN view of the aforesaid position appearing on record, I do not deem it to be a fit case to entertain this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. More so when the proceedings in the form of Civil Suit are filed by the respondents 6 to 10 and such a civil Suit is pending; CWP. No. 991/2003 filed was also dismissed with liberty to file Civil Suit; the matter involves various disputed questions of facts including as to whether there are entries in the revenue records about the said rasta; whether there is any other Rasta or not; whether the villagers need such a Rasta at all or not whether the petition is motivated at the instance of some colonizers etc. Further when the suit is already pending where these issues can be resolved after the evidence is led by the parties, it is not proper to entertain the present writ petition. ( 14 ) THIS writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the civil court by filing civil suit. No costs.