JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging an order dated 20.03.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, Kamrup (M) in Misc Appeal No. 10/2017. The said Appeal was instituted by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (herein after Act) which was dismissed. 2. As per the facts projected, an eviction proceeding was initiated by the respondent - Railways in the year 2010, which was followed by a number of litigations including some in the High Court. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued on 22.11.2017 culminating in the order dated 15.02.2018 directing eviction of the petitioner from the land of the Railways. The said order was put to challenge in the appeal indicated above which has been dismissed vide the impugned order dated 20.03.2019. 3. I have heard Shri P.J. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Ms. R. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Railways, Ms. A. Gayan, learned C.G.C., Shri J. Handique, learned State Counsel and Ms. N. Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department. 4. At the outset, this Court would like to record the submission of Shri Handique, the learned State Counsel, who has raised the preliminary objection that orders passed in an appeal under Section 9 of the Act by the learned District Judge can be challenged only by an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In this connection, Shri Handique has referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Nandini J. Shah reported in (2018) 15 SCC 356 . The following observations have been pressed into service. “49. In other words, the Appellate Officer while exercising power under Section 9 of the 1971 Act, does not act as a persona designata but in his capacity as a pre existing judicial authority in the district (being a District Judge or judicial officer possessing essential qualification designated by the District Judge). Being part of the district judiciary, the judge acts as a Court and the order passed by him will be an order of the Subordinate Court against which remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be availed on the matters delineated for exercise of such jurisdiction. 50. Being part of the district judiciary, the judge acts as a Court and the order passed by him will be an order of the Subordinate Court against which remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be availed on the matters delineated for exercise of such jurisdiction. 50. Reverting to the facts of the present case, the respondents had resorted to remedy of writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. In view of our conclusion that the order passed by the District Judge (in this case, Judge, Bombay City Civil Court at Mumbai) as an Appellate Officer is an order of the Subordinate Court, the challenge thereto must ordinarily proceed only under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and not under Article 226. …” 5. While the aforesaid submission would definitely warrant merit, this Court is of the opinion that the aspect of maintainability of this petition would not be gone into as the writ jurisdiction has been tried to be invoked by the petitioner. 6. Shri Phukan, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned District Judge while deciding the appeal did not take into consideration the relevant factors and had proceeded on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He has submitted that certain documents were applied under the RTI Act which would have relevancy in the adjudication process and that aspect has not been appreciated by the learned District Judge. He has also submitted that if the learned District Judge had gone into the extent of questioning the right of the petitioner over the land in question, such question would also be applicable so far as the Railway is concerned. The learned counsel has however submitted that he was not fully equipped with all the instructions today. 7. Per contra, Ms. Bora, the learned Standing Counsel, Railways has submitted that the present attempt is nothing but a move to drag the proceedings which was initiated in the year 2010 itself. By referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 22.11.2021, the learned Standing Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the documents enclosed therewith which includes the chitha and the map indicating the land in question which belongs to the Railways. By referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 22.11.2021, the learned Standing Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the documents enclosed therewith which includes the chitha and the map indicating the land in question which belongs to the Railways. She has also submitted that in the impugned judgment dated 20.03.2019, the learned District Judge has taken into consideration all the relevant aspects and has also dealt with the plea of the petitioner that certain documents were sought for under the RTI. She has submitted that the learned Court has come to a conclusion that seeking documents under the RTI to show the ownership will not make any sense as it was the duty of the petitioner- appellant to place all the documents and prove as how he came into the possession of the land and running the college. She has also drawn the attention of this Court to various other documents including FIRs lodged from time to time whereby the petitioner and his agents have tried to obstruct railway works and one such FIR is dated 31.10.2006. The learned Standing Counsel accordingly submits that the instant writ petition is without any merits and is liable to be dismissed. 8. Both Ms. Gayan, the learned CGC and Ms. Bordoloi, the learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department have supported the stand of the learned counsel for the Railways and has submitted that the impugned order dated 20.03.2019 is justified and does not require any interference. 9. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined. 10. As mentioned above, this Court has not gone into the technicalities regarding the maintainability of the writ petition which was raised by Shri Handique, the learned State Counsel and has considered the rival submissions on its merits. Though Shri Phukan, the learned counsel for the petitioner has expressed certain predicaments, this Court would also record that considering that the eviction process was initiated in the year 2010 and long 16 years have passed and the writ petition is itself pending since the year 2019, this Court is not inclined to grant any further adjournment. 11. Before venturing to adjudicate the issue on merits, this Court would like to remind itself that in exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction, the contours are limited which has been well settled by a catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 11. Before venturing to adjudicate the issue on merits, this Court would like to remind itself that in exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction, the contours are limited which has been well settled by a catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Law is well settled in this field. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after discussing the previous case laws on the jurisdiction of a Writ Court qua the writ of certiorari, in the recent decision of Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and Anr. Vs. Bikartan Das & Ors [Civil Appeal No. 3339 of 2023] has laid down as follows: “49. Before we close this matter, we would like to observe something important in the aforesaid context: Two cardinal principles of law governing exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution more particularly when it comes to issue of writ of certiorari. 50. The first cardinal principle of law that governs the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, more particularly when it comes to the issue of a writ of certiorari is that in granting such a writ, the High Court does not exercise the powers of Appellate Tribunal. It does not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior tribunal purports to be based. It demolishes the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous but does not substitute its own views for those of the inferior tribunal. The writ of certiorari can be issued if an error of law is apparent on the face of the record. A writ of certiorari, being a high prerogative writ, should not be issued on mere asking. 51. The second cardinal principle of exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is that in a given case, even if some action or order challenged in the writ petition is found to be illegal and invalid, the High Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction thereunder can refuse to upset it with a view to doing substantial justice between the parties. Article 226 of the Constitution grants an extraordinary remedy, which is essentially discretionary, although founded on legal injury. It is perfectly open for the writ court, exercising this flexible power to pass such orders as public interest dictates & equity projects. Article 226 of the Constitution grants an extraordinary remedy, which is essentially discretionary, although founded on legal injury. It is perfectly open for the writ court, exercising this flexible power to pass such orders as public interest dictates & equity projects. The legal formulations cannot be enforced divorced from the realities of the fact situation of the case. While administering law, it is to be tempered with equity and if the equitable situation demands after setting right the legal formulations, not to take it to the logical end, the High Court would be failing in its duty if it does not notice equitable consideration and mould the final order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. Any other approach would render the High Court a normal court of appeal which it is not.” 12. The challenge, as indicated above is against the judgment dated 20.03.2019 passed by the learned District Judge in an appeal filed under Section 9 of the Act. The said appeal was preferred against a notice dated 15.02.2018 for eviction. The records would clearly show that the initial show cause notice was issued on 15.03.2010 in Eviction Case No. EO/MLG/1041/2010. 13. The learned District Judge has also recorded that there has been protracted litigations which have dragged the proceeding and finally vide an order passed by the High Court, the appeal was directed to be preferred which was accordingly done. The learned Judge has recorded the grounds of appeal and has come to a finding that the petitioner - appellant could not demonstrate any materials as to how he came into possession of the land from which he is running the college. This Court is of the opinion that the conclusion arrived by the learned District Judge wherein he has rejected the plea of seeking documents under the RTI Act is in the right direction inasmuch as if the petitioner claims to be the owner or possessor of the land, he is under a bounden duty to prove the same by documents and such documents would have to be in his possession and cannot be the subject matter of any RTI application. On the other hand, the respondent -Railways which had contested the case has also enclosed in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 22.11.2021, documents including the chitha and maps which would prima facie show that the land belongs to the Railway. 14. On the other hand, the respondent -Railways which had contested the case has also enclosed in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 22.11.2021, documents including the chitha and maps which would prima facie show that the land belongs to the Railway. 14. An argument has been sought to be advanced that the demarcation process is also not complete. In the opinion of this Court, such argument cannot be countenanced in view of the fact that the appeal which was filed under Section 9 of the Act was in pursuance to a direction of this Court and the appeal has been decided by taking into consideration all the relevant aspect which is required to be done. 15. The objective of the Act of 1971 is to provide speedy machinery for eviction of unauthorized occupants of public premises. In the instant case, the eviction notice was initially issued on 15.03.2010 and the process is yet to come to an end inasmuch as while this writ petition was moved, an interim order was passed. By the conduct of the petitioner, the entire objective of the Act has been sought to be defeated. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussions and facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no case for interference is made out qua the impugned order dated 20.03.2019 passed in Misc Appeal No.10/2017 passed by the learned District Judge, Kamrup (M). 17. Writ petition accordingly stands dismissed. 18. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.