Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. This writ petition is preferred by the petitioner for a direction to the respondents to decide his representations dated 8. 2008 and 20.8.2008 within a stipulated period. 2. The allegation of the petitioner is that one Head Quarters Ex-servicemen Pensioners Association, Chennai is making illegal construction in the eastern boundary of the road in Survey No.574, Sholinganallur-I Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District and he has made a representation for demolition of the same. 3. From one of the representations, it appears that the petitioner is the owner of the premises bearing Plot Nos.163, 189 and 190 of Alamelumangapuram Layout Part II and the layout was connected with a pattai (road), which was used by the cultivators of the said lands. It appears that the petitioner is personally affected by the wall made by the Association. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the compound wall is being constructed on a road. He produced certain photographs from which we do not find existence of any road, but it was submitted that there is a cart road. It is stated that the land on which the construction is made is a Government land. 5. In the present case, the Head Quarters Ex-servicemen Pensioners Association has not been impleaded as a party and there appears to be a dispute in question of fact, which cannot be determined by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Without deciding the question whether the petitioner has any right for demolition of the compound wall, it would not be desirable for the authorities to decide the representations preferred by the petitioner. 6. Apart from the fact that the petitioner has remedy before the civil Court of competent jurisdiction, a Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 28. 2008 in R. Munuswamy v. The District Collector, Vellore and Others (W.P.No.20494 of 2008), held as under: "In view of such consistent view of the Supreme Court, the exercise of writ jurisdiction for removal of encroachment or obstruction on public land, especially when a specific efficacious remedy for the same has been provided under Sections 133 to 143 of the Code, in our judgment, would be both inappropriate and improper." 7. In view of the aforesaid observation made by us and the decision of a Division Bench cited supra, while we are not inclined to grant relief and dismiss the writ petition, we give liberty to the petitioner to approach the civil Court of competent jurisdiction for appropriate relief. The writ petition is dismissed with the above observation. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2008 is also dismissed.