JUDGMENT Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J. The first petitioner is the Committee of Management of a post-graduate college. The grievance in the petition is that Arazi No. 576 admeasuring 30 decimals has been encroached upon by the private respondents. The allegation that the private respondents are encroachers is seriously contested on behalf of respondent no.17 who has entered appearance in these proceedings. 2. A civil dispute between the petitioners and the private respondents in regard to the allegation of encroachment cannot be resolved in these proceedings in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Hence, the petitioners would have to follow the ordinary civil remedy for espousing the grievance. 3. In the alternative, it has been submitted that, in any event, the petitioners seek to lodge a First Information Report, following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. & Ors. [Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 68 of 2008, decided on 12 November 2013]. There cannot be any dispute about the principle that the competent authority, upon the lodging of an FIR, would be duty bound to act in accordance with law laid down by the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari's case (supra). A preliminary enquiry of the nature contemplated in the said judgment would have to be held in the first instance. 4. However, insofar as the primary grievance in regard to the allegation of an encroachment is concerned, we are unable to enter a finding of fact since the issue turns on the evaluation of several disputed questions of fact. There are allegations and cross allegations between the parties including in regard to filing of several other petitions in public intersest. We, therefore, relegate the petitioner to the ordinary civil remedy and dispose of the petition accordingly.