Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer of issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent herein to consider the petitioners representation dated 11.11.2011. 2. The petitioner claims that she is the owner of the land in pursuance to the purchase comprising in R.S.No. 201/1 O.S.No.202/1 part and having patta No. 1086. The petitioner is also paying necessary revenue tax. The case of the petitioner is that the neighbouring persons of the property are trying to encroach upon the land of the petitioner. The petitioner therefore made representation to the respondents for demarcation of the land. 3. The writ petition is totally misconceived. Legal remedy with the petitioner is to approach the Civil Court by way of suit for injunction against the persons who are threatening the possession of the petitioner. All the contentions can be canvassed before the Civil Court. 4. The petitioner has no right to seek demarcation from the second respondent nor there is any legal obligation with the first respondent to decide the representation filed by the petitioner. 5. No writ of mandamus is competent in the absence of legal right and corresponding legal obligation of the first respondent to redress the grievance. No merits. Dismissed. No costs.