ORDER : M.G.S. KAMAL, J. The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 23.02.2013 passed in Misc.A.No.1/2012 on the file of the XLI Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru and seeking consequential relief of confirmation of the order dated 17.12.2011 passed by respondent No.1-Estate Officer in Eviction Case No.NTC/EO/MI/01/11 produced at Annexures-A and B respectively. 2. Facts in brief are that, National Textile Corporation a Central Government public undertaking established under the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalization) Act, 1974 had acquired all the assets and holdings of the petitioner-Company. Said National Textile Corporation had published a tender notice for sale of land and building on ''as is where is basis'' and ''as is what is basis'', pursuant to which respondent No.3 participated in the tender process and consequently a deed of sale dated 20.07.2004 was executed by National Textile Corporation in favour of respondent No.3 conveying 7.22 acres of land along with a sketch indicating the boundary demarcation as per the tender notification. 3. Thereafter, respondent No.3 in terms of deed of sale dated 01.08.2005 conveyed aforesaid extent of 7.22 acres of land in favour of respondent No.4- Sobha Developers Pvt. Ltd. Respondent No.4 in turn executed two deeds of sale dated 24.12.2009 and 03.02.2010 conveying the aforesaid land measuring 7.22 acres of land in favour of respondent No.2 herein. 4. Things stood thus, a petition under Sections 5, 5A and 5B of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, came to be filed by the petitioner herein before the respondent No.1-Estate Officer against respondent No.2 herein in the above Eviction Case No.NTC/EO/MI/01/11 contending inter-alia that after having sold the aforesaid extent of 7.22 acres of land in favour of respondent No.3, National Textile Corporation had retained 1.20 acres of land situated on the South-Eastern side of Nala, which is in its absolute ownership and possession. That at the time of conveyance of the land by the respondent No.3 in favour of respondent No.4, it had altered the boundary demarcation to include said portion of land retained by the National Textile Corporation. The respondent No.4 accordingly sold the aforesaid land in favour of respondent No.2 with the altered boundary demarcation. That at the time of conveyance of the land by the respondent No.3 in favour of respondent No.4, it had altered the boundary demarcation to include said portion of land retained by the National Textile Corporation. The respondent No.4 accordingly sold the aforesaid land in favour of respondent No.2 with the altered boundary demarcation. That respondent No.2 herein has started digging up land retained by the National Textile Corporation belonging to the petitioner on the South Western Side beside Southern side of Nala and hence sought for an order to prevent unauthorized construction being carried on by the respondent No.2 on the said land. 5. Accepting the case of the petitioner, the respondent No.1-Estate Officer allowed the petition by his order dated 17.12.2011 with the following directions: "ORDER It is ordered that the unauthorized construction of compound wall put up on the schedule public premises shall be demolished by M/s Vaishnavianand Pvt. Ltd., and/or the persons concerned with such unauthorized construction, within 15 days from the date of publication of this order, and clear the debris arising out of such demolition and level the ground suitably damaged due to such unauthorized construction immediately after the demolition of the unauthorized construction, failing which the said unauthorized construction shall be demolished by NTC management and level up the ground damaged construction and claim the cost on account of the same from M/s Vaishnavianand and those other persons concerned with such unauthorized construction on the schedule public premises." 6. Being aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.2 herein preferred a Miscellaneous Appeal before the XLI Additional City Civil Judge (CCH-42), Bengaluru, in M.A.No.1/2012, primarily disputing the very existence and identity of the land/premises being claimed by the petitioner. The First Appellate Court, allowed the said appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Being aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed. 7. Sri. Nagesh Moro, learned counsel appearing for Smt. Sumana Naganand, learned counsel for the petitioner appearing through video conference submits that the First Appellate Court erred in setting aside the order passed by the respondent No.1-Estate Officer and remanding the matter for fresh consideration on the premise of surveying the land in question, inasmuch as the description of the land as given in the order passed by the respondent No.1-Estate Officer is sufficient enough to identify the land being in unauthorised occupation of the respondent No.2. He submits that since sufficient material was made available there was no need or necessity for the First Appellate Court to have set-aside the order and remand the matter for fresh consideration. He insists that during the pendency of this writ petition, this Court by Order dated 21.06.2016 had sought for survey report of the disputed area and accordingly a survey report along with a survey sketch has been submitted. Referring to the said survey report and sketch produced before this Court, learned counsel submits that the portions of the land in actual possession of the petitioner as well as of the respondent No.2 has been delineated and demarcated, requiring no further enquiry into the matter. 8. However, on a query by this Court as to whether the schedule/description of the land as given in the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1-Estate Officer is in conformity with the survey report and sketch now produced before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits ''it is not''. 9. Sri. Sajan Poovayya, learned Senior counsel appearing for Sri. Somnath H.S., learned counsel for the respondent No.2 through video conference on the other hand submits that the order passed by the First Appellate Court cannot be found fault with, inasmuch as there is a serious dispute with regard to the very identity of the land being claimed by the petitioner. He also raises the issue with regard to very maintainability of the proceedings before the respondent No.1-Estate Officer under the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. He submits that considering the averments, allegations and the counter allegations made in the proceedings, the matter may have to be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court and the respondent No.1-Estate Officer may not be having jurisdiction to deal with the issue with regard to identity, title and possession of the land. He submits that all these grounds may have to be urged before the respondent No.1-Estate Officer, and the pendency of the present matter before this Court is coming in the way of determination of the matter is one way or the other. Therefore, he submits that the order impugned may be sustained and the petition may be dismissed. 10. Heard and perused the records. 11. Therefore, he submits that the order impugned may be sustained and the petition may be dismissed. 10. Heard and perused the records. 11. There is no dispute of the fact that in terms of a deed of sale dated 20.07.2004 produced at page No. 114 of the writ petition, respondent No.3-National Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd., purchased an extent of 7.22 acres of land forming part of CTS No.2 from National Textile Corporation. There is also no dispute of the fact that by another deed of sale dated 01.08.2005 produced at page No.129 of the writ petition, respondent No.3-National Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd., in turn sold the said extent of land in favour of respondent No.4 in this petition. Respondent No.4 in turn sold the said extent of land in terms of two deeds of sale dated 24.12.2009 and 03.02.2010 in favour of respondent No.2. 12. Thus, the fact that an extent of 7.22 acres of land has been subject matter of the aforesaid sale transactions is not in dispute. 13. The claim of the petitioner is that it possesses an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas of land which falls within the boundaries of the aforesaid 7.22 acres of land. The land described in the said petition as seen in the impugned order is as under:- "Unauthorised construction of the land in survey No.CTS 2 (Part), Gopalapura, Bangalore on the south western side besides southern side of nala, belonging to Minerva Mills, Magadi Road, Bangalore, unit of National Textile Corporation Ltd., a Government of India Undertaking." 14. Thus, in the order passed by the respondent No.1-Estate Officer, there is no specific description of the land which is being claimed by the petitioner. 15. The First Appellate Court in its Order at paragraph Nos.22 and 23 has held as under: "22. On going through the hand sketch produced by the respondent No.2, it reveals that there is demarcation of property sold by the respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.3. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 shown the sketch with the copy of Sale Deed said to have been altered demarcations of the area in the map by the respondent No.3 while selling the land to the respondent No.4. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 shown the sketch with the copy of Sale Deed said to have been altered demarcations of the area in the map by the respondent No.3 while selling the land to the respondent No.4. So, he argued that though the area of 7.22 acres is mentioned in the Sale Deed, the demarcation or the marked area in the hand sketch was only sold by the respondent No.2 to the respondent No.3. Hence, whatever may be the measurement in the Sale Deed is not material, but the boundaries shown in the hand sketch is material, which prevails over the measurement. So, he argued that the respondent No.2 retained the said area, which is not covered in the demarcated portion in the hand sketch annexed with the Sale Deed. Whereas, the learned counsel for appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.3 have argued that the said argument cannot be accepted, because the hand sketch annexed with the Sale Deed, dated: 20.07.2004 was the old hand sketch, which was prepared at the time of putting property for public auction. At the time of Sale Deed, same hand sketch was annexed without adding additional area of 35 guntas in the said hand sketch. However, the respondent No.2 is not disputing the sale of land to the extent of 7.22 acres and the appellant and respondent No.3 are also do not want to have any inch of excess area than the purchased area of 7.22 acres, if the respondent No.2 is ready for survey. 23. So, hearing arguments on both the sides, on careful scrutiny of the available records, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 cannot be accepted, because the view taken by the Estate Officer on the basis of enclosed hand sketch is pervasive and not a good conclusion, because it requires detail survey of the disputed lands as the purchased lands of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 and the appellant are adjoining to the disputed area, on which the respondent No.2 is also claiming that it belongs to it. Therefore, the order passed by respondent No.1 without providing opportunity to any of the parties herein and without passing any order on the application seeking permission to appoint Court Commissioner to survey the purchased land and adjoined land is defective, the same requires to be set aside. Therefore, the order passed by respondent No.1 without providing opportunity to any of the parties herein and without passing any order on the application seeking permission to appoint Court Commissioner to survey the purchased land and adjoined land is defective, the same requires to be set aside. The respondent No.1 ought to have permitted the appellant herein to appoint the Surveyor to survey and measure the entire disputed area including the purchased area, in order to ascertain the truth in the matter. Without passing any orders on the said application, hurriedly proceeded to pass the final order on the matter which was not warranted. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the matter requires to be remitted back to the respondent No.1 to conduct detailed enquiry in the matter by giving sufficient opportunity to all the parties to the proceedings and also by allowing the pending application for appointment of Commissioner to survey the land in question and also to record the evidence thereon by the Commissioner and also by all the parties and thereafter, to pass an appropriate order judiciously in accordance with law. Under these circumstances, I hold that the Impugned Order passed by the Estate Officer i.e., respondent No.1 dated: 17.12.2011 is not in accordance with law and also is not in accordance with the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. So, interference of this court in the Impugned Order is necessary. With these reasons, my answer on Point No.1 is in the Negative and my answer on Point No.2 is in the Affirmative." 16. From the above, it is clear that the First Appellate Court in the light of dispute with regard to the very identity and existence of the land being claimed by the petitioner has thought it appropriate to set aside the order of the respondent No.1-Estate Officer and has remanded the matter for fresh consideration, providing an opportunity to the parties to present their case. 17. In view of the aforesaid admitted factual aspect of the matter, more particularly, the very survey report and sketch presented before this Court pursuant to the order as noted hereinabove, it cannot be said that the description of the land as given by the petitioner is the one as found in the survey sketch. 17. In view of the aforesaid admitted factual aspect of the matter, more particularly, the very survey report and sketch presented before this Court pursuant to the order as noted hereinabove, it cannot be said that the description of the land as given by the petitioner is the one as found in the survey sketch. It is also necessary to note, even if the order as passed by the respondent No.1/Estate Officer is put to execution, the same may not be possible as the land admittedly cannot be identified. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot undertake the enquiry on the disputed questions of fact with regard to the very identity and existence of the land. 18. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the First Appellate Court, petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed. 19. Since the parties are represented by their respective learned counsels', they shall appear before the respondent No.1-Estate Officer on 30.01.2026 , without any further notice. 20. The respondent No.1-Estate Officer shall dispose of the matter as expeditious as possible within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 21. All contentions are kept open to be urged before the respondent No.1-Estate Officer.