JUDGMENT : Ashutosh Kumar, CJ. The writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.02.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.6038/2015. 2. In the present case, 2(two) brothers are fighting each other for possession of a particular piece of land. 3. The respondent No.5/writ petitioner initiated a proceeding under Section 145 /146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , which was registered as MR Case No.209/1999. 4. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate by order dated 03.12.2001 declared the possession of the other brother over the said portion of land, who is the appellant herein. 5. The effort made by the writ petitioner/respondent No.5 herein of having such order declaring the possession of the appellant nullified, failed at every stage. However, in the meantime, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate under the garb of executing the order dated 03.12.2001, directed respondent No.4/the Officer in Charge of the concerned Police Station to deliver possession of the land to the appellant. This was without any direction by the learned Magistrate in the M.R. Case. 6. Such an order was challenged, though wrongly, in a Title Suit in which the prayer for injunction was rejected. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent No.5 is not in a position to tell us about the stage of the Title Suit presently. 8. The records reveal that after the order of the Magistrate was passed in the M.R. case declaring the possession of the appellant, nothing was done at his end for having his possession over the land in question confirmed. 9. In such a circumstance, there could have been no direction by any authority for handing over the possession to the appellant when there was an adjudication about his remaining in possession all through. 10. It appears that both sides have filed criminal cases against each other. 11. The allegation in both the FIRs is not known to us presently. 12. The learned Single Judge, therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case observed that in the absence of any positive order for delivering the possession of the said plot of land to the appellant, no such effort could have been made by any authority. If at all the possession of the appellant is disturbed on any count, he has the option of approaching the concerned authority for the needful. If at all the possession of the appellant is disturbed on any count, he has the option of approaching the concerned authority for the needful. The learned Single Judge, however, has observed, while concluding, that the appellant would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law in case his possession is disturbed or he is sought to be evicted. 13. We do not find any reason to differ with the afore-noted observation of the learned Single Judge. 14. Otherwise also, there does not appear to be any merit in this appeal. 15. The appeal stands dismissed.