The turf battle that triggered bullets and bruises on Saturday took a legal turn on Tuesday with Mani Group moving the high court for help to “identify” the contentious plot before construction of a boundary wall.

The first move to construct a boundary wall at 32 Canal Circular Road — with payloaders rolling in on Saturday — had sparked a wave of resistance from the residents of Purbasha Housing Estate adjoining the plot.

The residents of the housing complex allege that the builders are illegally filling up a water body at the site and the erection of the boundary wall would enable them to completely drain the watery tract.

This, they claim, will affect the ecological balance of the area and impede drainage of rain water.

Assessment records of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation (CMC) dating back to 1923 mention 32 Canal Circular Road as “land”.

But 32 Canal Circular Road features as a “tank” on a list prepared by the civic body in 1998-99.

This confusion has prompted Mani Group — on whom a “stop-work order” was slapped by the civic body three days ago — to file a petition against the CMC, with Purbasha Housing Estate as one of the parties to the case.

“Since we have now moved court, it would not be proper to comment on the matter. But in our petition we have furnished all necessary documents needed to justify our claim that the plot is a land and not a tank,” said a senior official of Mani Group.

“A small portion of the land could be tank and if the state government wants, we would be only too happy to preserve it as that would enhance the status of our project,” he added.

On Tuesday, officials from the assessment department and the project management unit of the CMC jointly submitted a “status report” on the disputed land to the municipal commissioner.

Mayor Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya directed municipal commissioner Alapan Bandyopadhyay to wait for the court directive on the matter before deciding on the next course of action.

“There are discrepancies in the civic records over the character of the land. While this is nothing unusual, we would not like to rush to any conclusion over the nature of the land,” Bhattacharyya said.

“We will not take any decision on the nature of the land. Let the court decide and we will act accordingly,” he added.

The mayor also told his commissioner not to proceed with the mutation of the land that Mani Group claims to have bought.

Civic officials clarified that a consortium of 27 companies under Mani Group has applied for mutation of the land.

Mani Group, that has struck gold with Mani Square on the EM Bypass, aims to consolidate its land-holding next to Purbasha Housing Estate and create a large plot opening on the Bypass.

This prime plot, say company officials, would be turned into an information technology (IT) address — and not a residential complex — to reap maximum benefits.

To get the prized project back on track after the showdown on Saturday, Mani Group moved court on Tuesday. The appeal would be listed on Wednesday and heard soon after.

Senior group officials claimed to have a strong case since the civic records in 2004-05 also earmark the watery tract next to Purbasha Housing Estate as “land”, contrary to the “tank” list of 1998.