JUDGMENT N. Kotiswar Singh, J. Heard Mr. M. Devananda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned senior G.A. for the State respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Association, a registered association and represented by its President, namely, Mr. A. Brajakumar Sharma. According to the petitioner, the petitioner Association owns a land under Dag No. 2601 situated at Jiribam having Patta No. 279 (old)/481 (new) measuring an area of 6.0705 hectares in revenue village No. 3 - Dibong (Jiribam) of Imphal East District, Manipur. It has been claimed that the petitioner Association had been possessing the said suit land continuously without any interruption or disturbance for more than 24 years. However, sometime in the early part of October, 2012, some un-authorised persons tried to construct an inter village road (IVR) inside the said land without the permission of the petitioner association. Thereafter, the President of the Association submitted an application to the ADC Jiribam, Imphal East District, Manipur and AS & SO, Jiribam, Imphal East District, Manipur on 20.11.2012 requesting not to allow any unauthorised construction as the land belongs to the petitioner Association. However, apprehending disturbances from unauthorised persons including the private respondents, the petitioner approached the Civil Court by instituting the Original Suit No. 77 of 2013 before the Civil Judge Sr. Division, Manipur East No. II for declaration respondents. It has been stated that in the said suit, the private respondents had filed a written statement admitting that they had constructed the road in the land which belongs to the petitioner. 3. It has been submitted by the petitioner that in the course of the said trial, the petitioner came to know that the work order dated 27.5.2013 had been issued in favour of the private respondent No. 6 by the State respondent for construction of road from Harinagar to J/T Road. 4. The petitioner's plea in the writ petition is that since the land belongs to the petitioner Association, the respondent authorities have no right to issue any work order inviting for construction of any road inside a private land. Accordingly, the petitioner has challenged the work order dated 27.5.2013 issued in favour of the respondent No. 6 in the present writ petition. 5. At the time of motion, Mr. Accordingly, the petitioner has challenged the work order dated 27.5.2013 issued in favour of the respondent No. 6 in the present writ petition. 5. At the time of motion, Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned senior GA submitted that the present writ petition is not maintainable in asmuch as it has been stated very clearly that in the written objection filed by the defendants (respondent Nos. 5 & 6) in the Original Suit No. 77/2013 instituted by the present petitioner that the work had already been completed on 30.8.2013. In this connection, learned senior GA has drawn attention of this Court to the relevant paragraph of the written statement filed by the defendants, a copy of which is annexed to the present petition as Annexure-A/5. In this connection, one may refer to the relevant paragraph of the written statement filed by the defendants (present respondent No. 5 and 6) in the Original Suit No. 77 of 2013 which is reproduced herein below: 5. It is humbly submitted that there is no any office of the Plaintiff's Association i.e., Small Scale Industrial Association inside the suit land. It is further submitted that the Defendant No. 2 is/was the Government Contractor of Public Works Department, Manipur and also the Defendant No. 1 is the simple locality/villager of Uchathol, Jiribam, under the Imphal East District, Manipur and as such the Government of Manipur had been issued a notice for tendering of "Work Orders" being No. JD/CT(8)/2013/204 dated 27.05.2013 for construction of Road from Harinagar to J/T road, vide letter No. SE-I/SW/JBM/2012-13/2 dated 25.05.2013 for a public purpose and as such as per works orders of the Public Works Department, Manipur, on behalf of the Governor of Manipur, the Defendant No. 2 has started the aforesaid "Works" inside the suit land and also as per works orders of the concerned Public Works Department, Manipur, on behalf of the Governor of Manipur, the Defendant No. 2 has started the aforesaid "Works" inside the suit land, after accepting the all formalities of the works orders of the concerned Public Works Department, Government of Manipur, in respect of the suit land. It is humbly submitted that the Plaintiff's Association has not issued any Notice under Section 80 of C.P.C., 1908 to the Government of Manipur in respect of the suit land i.e., before filing the present suit under the Provision of Civil Procedure Code, regarding suit land and also the present suit is not maintainable on the ground of mis-joinder and non-joinder under order I, Rule 9 of C.P.C., 1908 and also there is no any individual interest of the Defendants except the public purpose inside the suit land and also the Plaintiff's Association has no entitled to the reliefs claimed in respect of the suit land. It is further submitted that the aforesaid works of the Construction of Road from Harinagar to J/T Road, Jiribam, Imphal East, Manipur has been completed on 30.08.2013 and as such the concerned Section Officer and Assistant Engineer of Jiribam Division of Public Works Department, Manipur has submitted the Completion Report to the concerned superior Officer of Public Works Department, Government of Manipur regarding the further needful action at the earliest. 6. Accordingly, the learned senior Government Advocate has submitted that since the work has been already executed, the question of setting aside the impugned work order does not arise. Learned counsel for the petitioner however, submitted that no such work has been executed nor completed and this Court can interfere with by setting aside such a work order for executing a work in the land belonging to the petitioner Association which was without the consent of the petitioner. 7. While examining the validity or legality of the impugned work order dated 27.5.2013, if it is found that the work had been indeed executed, the question of setting aside an order which has been already implemented and lived its life does not arise. In that event the aggrieved party may seek other reliefs including damages from the concerned party or authority. However, as evident from above, this is a disputed fact. While the petitioner claims that no work had been executed pursuant to the said work order, as per the document produced by the petitioner, it has been stated that the work had been already executed. Thus, while examining the validity of the impugned work order, it is also required to be examined whether such work order had been already executed or not. Thus, while examining the validity of the impugned work order, it is also required to be examined whether such work order had been already executed or not. Further the learned senior Government Advocate also has placed on record a Government Memorandum bearing No. 2/65/77-R(Pt) dt. 27.1.2014 whereby a show cause was issued whereby the allotment of land in favour of the petitioner Association in respect of land measuring 6.0705 hectares covered by Dag No. 2601 under patta No. 841 (new)/279 (old) is sought to be reviewed by the government. Thus apart from the disputed question of fact as regards the execution of the work order, issues regarding title of the land is also involved. 8. This Court is of the view that there are certain disputed questions of facts are involved in this petition which this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not the appropriate forum. This Court is of the view that it will be appropriate for the petitioner to raise all these issues before the Court of Civil Judge Sr. Division No. II, Manipur East where the Original Suit No. 77/2013 is pending by making necessary applications or approach other competent Courts as the petitioner may deem appropriate, for redressal of their grievances. With the above observation, writ petition stands closed.