Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. This appeal under Clause 15 has been preferred by Nungambakkam Muslim Welfare Association (hereinafter referred to as Association) against judgment dated 28th Dec., 2006, in W.P. No.26658 of 2006, whereby and whereunder learned single Judge refused to interfere with letter No.J3-40935/2004 dated 22nd Feb., 2005, issued by the Collector of Chennai, addressed to the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Law & Order), F-3 Police Station, Chennai, and observed that the appellant Association has to get their remedy through the civil court and not by way of writ petition. 2. According to the appellant, the Association is a registered society having its office and prayer hall at Door No.59, Chokhatan Salai, Nungambakkam. The Association is having the front portion of the premises bearing Door No.205 in the Valluvar Kottam High Road, Nungambakkam. The 4th respondent Temple, basing on the order passed under the City Tenants Protection Act have plotted out various sites and sold them to seven persons. One amongst them was Mrs.K.K.Radhammal and the plot allotted to Mrs.Radhammal was sold to the appellant Association, which has constructed a gate. Besides their vendors, who were using the Chokhatan Salai, as a road having access to their property, as purchaser through the vendors, the Association is also having right to use the Chokhatan Salai. 3. It was submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the property, which has been purchased from Mrs.Radhammal, has its entrance at Door No.59, Chokhatan Salai, Nungambakkam, which shows its entry from Chokhatan Salai lane. Likewise, the other plots, which were purchased by Association are also having their entrance only in the Chokhatan Salai, since their vendors had used Chokhatan Salai as their access to their property. The purchaser of the land, i.e., the appellant Association is having same right, which cannot be denied by original vendor, the 4th respondent, Sri Agastheeswarar Prasanna Venkatesa Perumal Thirukoil, (hereinafter referred to as Temple). Learned counsel for the appellant Association, while submitted that the Association has got summary right of ingress and egress through Chokhatan Salai as per the documents relating to the plots of the land purchased for the benefit of the Association, it was further submitted that the gate had been put up therein by the owner of the property. Learned counsel for the appellant Association, while submitted that the Association has got summary right of ingress and egress through Chokhatan Salai as per the documents relating to the plots of the land purchased for the benefit of the Association, it was further submitted that the gate had been put up therein by the owner of the property. The Association has got every right to use the abovesaid Chokhatan Salai to have convenient entry to the mosque and their prayer hall, though Chokhatan Salai may be the private land of the temple. 4. The grievance of the appellant is against letter No.J3-40935/2004 dated 22nd Feb., 2005, addressed to the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Law & Order), F-3 Police Station, Chennai, wherein the following instruction has been given :- "I request you to kindly instruct the Mosque authorities to refrain from using the disputed passage in the temple premises of Agastheeswarar Venkatesa Perumal Temple near Valluvarkottam and also to suitable instruct them to remove the encroachment made by them by way of the gates in the land in question." 5. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the aforesaid order has been issued at the instance of a third party, who is the 3rd respondent, and without even providing any opportunity to the appellant, the Collector has passed the impugned order restraining the Association from using the disputed passage of the temple premises of the 4th respondent in violation of rules of natural justice and without hearing, directions were issued to remove the encroachments made by them by way of putting gates on the land in question. Before issuance of such order, neither any notice was issued to the appellant Association nor any opportunity of hearing was provided. No enquiry was held and, thus, the benefit to which the Association is entitled under the law has been taken away behind its back. It was further contended that the benefit what has been given to other tenants should be given to the Association by the temple authorities and denial of the same without opportunity has vitiated the impugned letter dated 22nd Feb., 2005. Reliance was placed on the fact that there was a gate having its opening in Chokhatan Salai road and in fact for the said reason, in the sale deed, the vendor has shown Door No.59 of Chokhatan Salai. Reliance was placed on the fact that there was a gate having its opening in Chokhatan Salai road and in fact for the said reason, in the sale deed, the vendor has shown Door No.59 of Chokhatan Salai. Apart from the gate, there being no other structure put therein, it cannot be alleged that any encroachment has been made and without any enquiry and application of mind, it has been ordered to remove the encroachment. Learned counsel for the appellant produced a sketch as shown hereunder in support of its claim :- N.M.W.A. – Nungambakkam Muslim Welfare Association N.M.W.A.1 – Radhammal – 3872 Sq. ft. N.M.W.A.2 – Ramalingam – 1652 Sq. ft. N.M.W.A.3 – V.K.Thangamathavan – 3872 Sq. ft. It was submitted that the Association purchased the property shown as NMWA1 in the year 1980 and after few months, purchased the property shown as NMWA3 and NMWA2. It is stated that Door No.2 was already there since the time of the vendor while the Association was using and only Door No.1 has been opened. Such right having been given to the other tenants, including the vendor of the appellant Association, the easmentary right cannot be taken away. .6. According to the 4th respondent temple, Chokhatan Salai is a private road of temple and appellant has no right of ingress and egress through the said property. The appellant has its premises, which includes a prayer hall at Door No.205, Valluvar Kottam High road, Nungambakkam, Chennai, and there is a big gate opened on the high road. Chokhatan Salai in Nungambakkam, Chennai, is measuring 600 feet x 30 feet, i.e., 1800 sq. ft., equivalent to 7 ground 1.200 sq. ft., belongs to the temple absolutely and nobody else has any right of way over the Chokhatan Salai, except the tenants of the temple. The entire stretch of Chokhatan Salai is exclusively for the benefit of the tenants of the temple till such time they remain as tenants of the temple. They have also raised the question of maintainability of the writ petition in regard to the claim of easmentary right as made by the appellant. .7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent submitted that he had made the complaint. They have also raised the question of maintainability of the writ petition in regard to the claim of easmentary right as made by the appellant. .7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent submitted that he had made the complaint. While it is accepted that no permanent encroachment has been made by appellant, it was submitted that the member of the association and persons belonging to a particular community are coming through Chokhatan Salai, parking their car and going to the mosque for hours together and, thereby, illegally encroaching the total Chokhatan Salai for hours together. Request was made to remove such vehicles from Chokhatan Salai, which amounts to temporary encroachment of the road. Further, according to him, as the road belongs to the temple, and followers of the temple enters the temple through the said Chokhatan Salai, a private road, due to the unauthorised encroachment by the members of the appellant association, in the name of attending the prayer hall or mosque, gave rise to tension in the local area. Due to law and order problem instruction was issued by the District Collector, Chennai, to Assistant Commissioner of Police (Law & Order), F-3 Police Station. Similar stand has been taken on behalf of the District Administration that the order was issued for the purpose of maintaining law and order in the area. 8. Before issuance of the impugned letter dated 22nd Feb., 2005, whether any enquiry was conducted or not, there is a dispute. While according to the appellant no such enquiry was conducted and no intimation was given to the appellant association, according to the counsel for the respondents, enquiry was made by spot verification in which the members of the association were also present. According to the 3rd respondent, the Revenue Officer of the Corporation of Chennai, by letter dated 22nd April, 2005, passed the following order :- "With reference to above cited, I hereby inform you that since you are not able to produce the relevant documents in respect of the property bearing Door No.10/1, Chockattan Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 34, Division – 78, under bill No.2665/01 in the name of The Nungambakkam Muslim Welfare Association is hereby stands cancelled." It was submitted that there is no document with the association to show that it has a door number of Chokhatan Salai. On the other hand, it will be evident that it has a door number of 205, Valluvar Kottam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai. 9. We have heard the parties and noticed the rival contentions as noticed above. It is not in dispute that the appellant has raised the question of ingress and egress on the road of Chokhatan Salai, which has been disputed by the respondents, including the temple, which is the owner of the land. As disputed question of facts cannot be determined by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in this background, the learned single Judge has refused to interfere with the impugned order and granted liberty to the aggrieved persons to move before a civil court of competent jurisdiction for such relief, we are not inclined to interfere with such order. Further, as it is open to the District Administration to take appropriate steps for maintaining law and order in the area and there is a civil dispute, no interference is called for in this case. 10. So far as the removal of encroachment is concerned, we are of the opinion that if any permanent structure is removed, then in that case, a notice is required to be given to the person who has made such construction, but for removal of temporary encroachment, such as parking of car, two wheelers, etc., no such notice is required to be given and it is always open to the authorities to ask the person concerned to remove such encroachment immediately. As in the present case it is informed that no permanent encroachment has been made by the appellant, for removal of encroachment made by car, two wheeler, etc., no notice was required to be given to the appellant. 11. There being no merit, the writ appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.