WPMS No. 2401 of 2011 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Standing Counsel for the State. Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for respondent No. 3. The prayer in the writ petition is that mandamus should be issued to the respondents not to encroach and construct the drain on the property in question. According to the petitioners, the property belongs to them. The Court had directed the respondents to take necessary instructions. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 states that the drain is being constructed by another agency on the land of the Nagar Nigam. The learned Standing Counsel states that the construction is being made by the Rural Engineering Services on the grant given by the local M.L.A. It has also been stated that the suit has been filed by someone with regard to the same issue in which the son of the petitioner is contesting the matter and holding the power of attorney of the petitioners. These fact has been denied by the petitioners. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, this Court is of the opinion that the appropriate remedy for the petitioners is to file a suit. The writ petition is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 18.11.2011 Shiv