Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010105912023 2025:GAU-AS:3211 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2840/2023 DIPAK RANJAN PAUL AND 4 ORS S/O- SHYAMENDRA PAUL, R/O- WARD NO. 16, P.S.- SILCHAR, SILCHAR TOWN, DISTRICT- CACHAR, ASSAM. 2: UDAY LAL GOALA S/O- LATE BIRBAL GOALA YADAV R/O- AMBIKAPUR PART-XI P.S. SILCHAR SADAR DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM. 3: BHOLA NATH YADAV S/O- LATE BIRBAL YADAV R/O- AMBIKAPUR PART-XI P.S. SILCHAR SADAR DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM. 4: UTTAM GOALA S/O- LATE BIRBAL GOALA R/O- AMBIKAPUR PART-XI Page No.# 2/4 P.S. SILCHAR SADAR DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM. 5: GAUTAM GOALA S/O- LATE BIRBAL GOALA R/O- AMBIKAPUR PART-XI P.S. SILCHAR SADAR DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS THROUGH- THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006. 2:THE DIRECTOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION ASSAM NEAR MESSAGE CONTROL ROOM DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CACHAR SILCHAR DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM PIN 781006. 4:SILCHAR MUNICIPAL BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN SILCHAR- 788001. 5:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER SILCHAR MUNICIPAL BOARD Page No.# 3/4 SILCHAR- 788001 DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R MAJUMDAR, H YEASMIN (P-2,3,4,5),MR H I CHOUDHURY (P-2,3,4,5),MR. P K ROYCHOUDHURY (P-2,3,4,5),MR. JUNM LASKAR Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MS S MOCHAHARI,MR. S DUTTA (R-4 & R-5),SC, S.M.B. BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 24-03-2025 1. Heard Mr. P.K.Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. N. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. D. Muchahary, learned Standing counsel, Silchar Municipal Board for the respondent Nos. 4 & 5. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that Silchar Municipal Board is constructing a boundary wall in the manner which has blocked the entrance to the houses and lands of the petitioners. It is the further contention that the petitioners will not object to the construction of boundary wall, but what they require is that there should be a passage by which the petitioners can have egress from and ingress into their lands. 3. On the other hand, it is the stand of the Silchar Municipal Board that the Board has not encroached any land of the petitioners, rather to protect Municipal land, they have constructed the wall and the petitioners are having alternative way for ingress and egress. Therefore, the petitioners cannot have a right to use the municipal land Page No.# 4/4 as road which is not otherwise declared as road. 4. Mr. Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that so far relating to the petitioner Nos. 2 to 5, the Municipal authority has kept some passages open for their ingress and egress, however, in a case of the petitioner No. 1, they have not facilitated the same to him. 5. This Court is of the opinion that such disputed question of fact, cannot be determined in this procedure. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he may be allowed to withdraw this writ petition and approach the District Revenue Authority/Administration to provide them access to a public road otherwise, they have no other alternative road. 7. Without commenting on such claim of the petitioners, they are given liberty to approach the appropriate authority/forum in the event, they are really in a situation, there is no road provided to them for ingress and egress to their respective lands. 8. With the above observation, this writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant