Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010204182025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5386/2025 DR PRADIP KR DAS S/O LATE NIRANJAN KUMAR DAS, R/O VIVEKANANDA COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY, MEHERPUR, SILCHAR, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788015 VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06, ASSAM 2:SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM REVENUE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 ASSAM 3:DIRECTOR TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 ASSAM 4:SILCHAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN TARAPUR SILCHAR-01 ASSAM 5:ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT OFFICER TARAPUR Page No.# 2/3 PWD ROAD SILCHAR-01 DIST- CACHAR ASSAM 6:PARIJAT SWAMI S/O LATE SUKHENDU BIJAY SWAMI R/O RAMKRISHNA MISSION ROAD SILCHAR P.O. AND P.S.- CACHAR DIST- CACHAR ASSAM PIN-78800 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R SARMA, MR. J K ROY Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, REVENUE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 15.09.2025 Heard Shri R. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, who is aggrieved by an order dated 14.08.2025 issued by the Chairman, Silchar Development Authority whereby direction has been given to the Field Assistant to make measurement of the land of the petitioner and the respondent no. 6 and has also directed the Assistant Settlement Officer, Cachar to demarcate the land. It is the case of the petitioner that the dispute regarding the land is presently before this Court in RSA No.24/2011 which is pending. It is also the case of the petitioner that in the said RSA, an order dated 28.01.2011 was passed in Misc Case No. 253/2011 directing the parties to maintain status quo. Also heard Shri N. Goswami, learned State Counsel who has submitted that approach to a Writ Court may not be the correct approach. Page No.# 3/3 After considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that when the issue is pending in RSA No. 24/2011 in which an order of status quo is said to be pending, the correct recourse of the petitioner would be to file proper application in the pending RSA raising the grievance, if any. Approach to a writ Court in a matter of this nature may not be the correct recourse. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed, however with liberty to approach this Court in the pending RSA in accordance with law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant