ORDER : Heard Mr. S.S. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Arpit Kumar, learned A.C. to G.A. II, for the respondent-State. 2. The petitioners in this writ application have prayed for quashing of the Memo dated 09.10.2014 issued by the respondent no. 3 by which the petitioners have been directed to stop the work of construction. 3. The petitioners in this writ application claim that the petitioners are the owners of the area in which the respondent no. 3 had issued notice for removal of the encroachment. It has been stated that earlier also there was a direction upon the father of the petitioners to remove the encroachment of 315 Sq.ft. of land which was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3379 of 2004 which was disposed of on 19.07.2004 with a direction to the said writ petitioner to prefer a representation before the respondent no. 3 and on such representation the respondent no. 3 shall fix a date and time for measurement and after such measurement the writ petitioner shall be informed about the extent of encroachment which he shall remove within one week. The petitioners claim that in spite of repeated efforts made by the petitioners requesting the respondents to measure the purported encroachment in a scientific manner but the same was not done and no inquiry was made. On a frivolous application of a member of a political party the impugned notice dated 09.10.2014 was issued directing the petitioner to remove 315 Sq.ft. of land and to stop the work of construction. 4. From the counter affidavit filed by the respondent nos. 2 to 4 it appears that pursuant to the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 3379 of 2004 notice was issued with respect to measurement of the land and pursuant to the said notice the petitioners had appeared. It has also been stated that a fresh measurement was made but the petitioners had objected on the ground that the measurement be considered with the original map of Mouza-Madansahi Tapuwa otherwise the measurement shall not be accepted by the petitioners. It has been averred in the counter affidavit that the original map is not available in the office of the Circle Officer, Sahibganj. It has been averred in the counter affidavit that the original map is not available in the office of the Circle Officer, Sahibganj. However, at the same time it has been stated that so far as the land is concerned there appears to be some dispute and the same has been divided between the family member of the petitioners. In fact at the time of measurement none of the parties concerned submitted any documents or map which would show that the area does not fall within encroachment of Ganga Path. Finally after conclusion of hearing an order was passed on 19.11.2014 by the respondent no. 3 directing the Circle Officer, Sahibganj to remove the encroachment after demarcation of Ganga Path. 5. From the averments made in the affidavits filed by the respective parties it therefore appears that measurements were carried out to ascertain the extent of encroachment and although the petitioners had participated at the time of measurement but objections were raised that the measurement can be compared only with respect to the original map which was not available in the office of the respondent no. 4. The measurement when compared to the other documents led the respondent no. 3 to come to a conclusion that 315 Sq.ft. of encroachment has been made by the petitioners and therefore they were directed to stop the construction work. 6. There appears to be no error or illegality in the impugned order dated 09.10.2014 passed by the respondent no. 3 as it has been ascertained that an encroachment had indeed been committed by the petitioners and therefore in such circumstances it was rightly ordered for stoppage of any further construction on the said premises. 7. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to entertain this writ application which accordingly stands dismissed. .