Judgment Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. Forty persons have joined together in this writ petition dated December 24th, 2007 alleging that without initiating any requisition or acquisition proceedings the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Burdwan and the Collector, Burdwan, at the instance of the Sabhadhipati, Zilla Parishad, Burdwan took steps for measuring and marking lands owned and possessed by them, on the ground that the lands would be required for construction of a link road under Prodhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yozona scheme. Counsel for the state, on specific written instructions, submits that the state authorities have taken absolutely no step for inspection, measurement, survey etc. of any land owned and possessed by any of the petitioners or for requisition or acquisition of any lands owned and possessed by them. Counsel for the Zilla Parishad submits, also on specific instructions, that the Zilla Parishad has taken no step for construction of any road under the scheme mentioned in the writ petition by utilizing any portion of the lands owned and possessed by any one of the petitioners. According to counsel for the respondents, this is a totally misconceived writ petition replete with vague statements made without any necessary particulars regarding the lands. After hearing counsel for the parties, I find that there is no reason to entertain the writ petition. Once it is submitted by the state authorities and the Zilla Parishad that they have not taken any step for taking possession of any land owned and possessed by any one of the petitioners, in my view, there is no scope for this court to make a roving inquiry on the basis of the vague allegations made by the petitioners for ascertaining whether any unidentified people entered into any land owned and possessed by them for inspection, survey works, etc. in connection with construction of any road under the scheme. If any private person has disturbed possession of any land owned and possessed by any one of the petitioners, in my view, remedy of the petitioners is only before the competent civil court, and not before the writ court. Nothing prevents the petitioners from approaching the appropriate civil court for protection of their lands. Counsel for the petitioners invites me to make an interim order till the time the petitioners institute the suit before the competent civil court. In my view, such a procedure should be not followed by the writ court. Nothing prevents the petitioners from approaching the appropriate civil court for protection of their lands. Counsel for the petitioners invites me to make an interim order till the time the petitioners institute the suit before the competent civil court. In my view, such a procedure should be not followed by the writ court. When I find that the dispute involved in the writ petition is a pure private dispute, and when counsel for the petitioners submits that his clients will approach the competent civil court, I do not see how any restraining order can be made by me in exercise of writ powers while dismissing the writ petition. Counsel for the petitioners wants me to record his submission that work in connection with construction of the road is going on. No case has been made out in the writ petition that works for execution whereof the authorities engaged anyone are going on in connection with construction of any road. Facing with the situation, counsel says that the construction works commenced during pendency of the writ petition. No application has been filed stating this fact described by counsel as subsequent development. Hence I do not see any reason to go by the submission made at the bar. For these reasons, I dismiss the writ petition. There shall be no order for costs.