ORDER I.A. No. 2349/2012 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The application is allowed and the delay in filing the L.P.A is condoned. I.A. No. 241 7/2012 3. There are few mistakes in the L.P.A. which are not relevant in view of our order. Therefore the amendment petition has become infmctuous. L.P.A. No. 310/2012. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. The appellant's Writ Petition being W.P (C) No.1354 of 2012 was dismissed vide order dated 15.06.2012 on the ground that the Circle Officer has directed the parties to go to the Civil Court and in a manner the disputed question of possession is involved therefore the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the land in question was the subject matter in the civil suit and ultimately the decree passed by the first appellate Court was affirmed by the second appellate Court i.e. the High Court. In view of the above there is no question of fact and the Circle Officer has observed contrary to the findings recorded in the decree passed by the Civil Court and that too which has been upheld by the High Court. 7. It appears from the order-sheet placed on record which starts from the order-sheet dated 20th December, 2011 and final order dated 15.02.2012 that there may be a boundary dispute between the parties. The Circle Officer at the most has jurisdiction to demarcate the boundary according to the materials available with him. Admittedly in this proceeding no order of possession/dispossession can be passed. Virtually this demarcation is done in the administrative side but in a quasi judicial form after giving opportunity to the parties but the effect of the order passed in such proceedings remains to be having limited effect as no actual relief is granted by the Circle Officer and at the cost of the repetition it may be observed that it is only a demarcation which can be made by the Circle Officer and even if the Circle Officer finds that one party is in possession of the excess land even then he cannot do anything in a private dispute between the two rival claimants. For actual relief the parties are required to obtain order and the decree from the Court of competent jurisdiction. For actual relief the parties are required to obtain order and the decree from the Court of competent jurisdiction. If the petitioner already has decree of declaration of title then in that situation on the basis of the title which may have perfected or may have been established by the binding decree between the parties then the petitioner can certainly place on record all material facts before the civil Court for obtaining the injunction even without seeking declaration as suit for mere injunction in such circumstance of said threat of dispossession etc. is independently maintainable as has been provided under the provision of Specific Relief Act. 8. Therefore. whenever such orders are passed by the Circle Officer with respect to the mere demarcation of the land then in that situation the parties should go to the civil Court straightway in case of any grievance or apprehension of dispossession or threat to their possession instead of approaching the Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India merely to challenge that the order by which only a demarcation' issue has been decided by the Circle Officer. 9. So the apprehension of the appellant-petitioner that the appellant will have to establish the title' which has already been established in the earlier round of litigation and the decree has been upheld by the High Court yet he will have to establish his title is not well founded and the petitioner can seek the relief of mere injunction from the civil Court and if he makes out a case for grant of injunction the civil Court can grant injunction and other appropriate relief in a properly instituted suit. 10. Therefore in that view of the matter we do not find any illegality in. the impugned order. 11. The L.P.A. is dismissed with the above observations. Appeal dismissed.