Order : Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioners have approached this Court against a notice bearing memo no. 185 dated 01.02.2016 issued by the Respondent No. 6 – Circle Officer, Dhanbad (Annexure-7) asking them to vacate the premises situate at plot no. 3479, khata no. 175, thana no. 08, mouza-Saraidhela, having an area of 14 decimals in which, a house is also situate on an area of 03 decimals. 3. As would appear from the enclosed annexures, petitioners got notice of Public Encroachment starting from memo no. 2384 dated 07.10.2015 asking them to appear with all relevant documents of property in question before the Respondent No. 6. Petitioners seem to have asked for further time which was granted by memo dated 09.11.2015. Petitioners seem to have again requested for further time on the grounds that it relates to the properties of their father and that, civil suit has already been instituted bearing no. 443/2015 before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dhanbad in which the Circle Officer, Dhanbad is also Defendant No. 6. Petitioners were again served with a notice bearing no. 2822 dated 22.12.2015 to appear with all relevant documents, but they again sought indulgence through a request made by Advocates' notice dated 15.01.2016 taking a plea of pendency of the civil suit. The impugned notice has thereafter been issued referring to the order passed in Encroachment Case No. 13/2015-2016 dated 01.02.2016. 4. Petitioners argument is that proceedings initiated on that account, were vague and they never got an impression that it was leading to a Public Land Encroachment Proceeding for eviction of the petitioners from the premises in question. Petitioners have based their claim to the property through a Hukumnama. Lands in question were originally recorded as Gair Abad Malik Land under Jharia Raj Estate and one Shri Shiv Prasad Singh was exercising all acts of Zamindari in relation to that. Hukumnama is said to be executed on 24.03.1941 by Attorney of Shiv Prasad Singh for an area of 14 decimals in plot no. 3479. One Sufal Mahato originally got the benefit of said settlement and is said to have acquired raiyati right, title and interest over the property. After his death, father of the petitioner no. 2 inherited the land. Petitioners claim to have constructed a residential house more than 30 years ago in the plot in question. 5. 3479. One Sufal Mahato originally got the benefit of said settlement and is said to have acquired raiyati right, title and interest over the property. After his death, father of the petitioner no. 2 inherited the land. Petitioners claim to have constructed a residential house more than 30 years ago in the plot in question. 5. In the background of the aforesaid claims made to the right, title and ownership of the property, on apprehending threat of eviction, it appears that the father of the petitioner no. 2 filed a title suit no. 443/2015 on 16.10.2015 for declaration of title and confirmation of possession after serving notice under section 80 CPC on the respondents including Circle Officer, Dhanbad. 6. Relevant facts noticed herein-above goes to show that petitioners have themselves invoked the jurisdiction of the competent Court of law for declaration of title and possession of the property in question after they got notice of proceedings for removal of encroachment through memo dated 07.10.2015. In such circumstances, petitioners not only have an alternative remedy before the competent Court where title suit is pending, but also have a remedy available under the Public Land Encroachment Act before the competent authority. Instead of having availed either of the remedies, they have rushed to this Court. This Court is not required to make any comments on the question relating to right, title, ownership and physical possession of the property. 7. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions, submits that steps for eviction have not been taken today i.e. date fixed, but likely to commence. Learned counsel for the respondent State submits that at best, petitioners can make a request before the Respondent No. 6 for extension of time to move before the competent Civil Court where suit is pending or any higher forum under Public Land Encroachment Act. Therefore, no interference should be accorded in such matter. 8. Having considered the submissions of the parties in the light of the relevant facts pleaded, this Court is also not satisfied that in questions relating to the right, title, ownership and physical possession of the property, any interference is required to be made when petitioners are themselves before the competent Court of law where such declaration have been sought. Petitioners however seem to have got notice of eviction, of which today is the date fixed. Petitioners however seem to have got notice of eviction, of which today is the date fixed. The only observation that can be made by this Court in the circumstances noticed herein-above that the petitioners may approach the competent Court of law or the appropriate forum under the B.P.L.E. Act for redressal. Respondent No. 6 would therefore refrain from taking coercive steps against the petitioners for a period of two weeks from today. 9. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is disposed of. However, no observation made herein-above would be treated as any comments on the merits of the case of the parties.