7. Shri Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State, again submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable on account of the fact that the relief sought for is purely a question of deciding the title as well as possession of the disputed property and for which there is specific efficacious alternative remedy under the civil law and perhaps this cannot be decided exercising the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Counsel for the State further also referred to Annexure R-2 filed along with the reply of the State whereby at the instance of this Court an enquiry was conducted by the office of the Superintendent of Police, Durg, who in its report dated 16.1.2001 has categorically held that upon enquiring into the allegations and complaints filed by the Petitioners they did not find any offence to have been made out and accordingly a report has been submitted which itself is sufficient for rejecting the writ petition. According to the Petitioners, on their complaint no enquiry had made by the police whereas even before the writ petition was filed, the police had already conducted an enquiry and found that no offence is made out. As such the first, second and third relief
