JUDGMENT : MANISH CHOUDHURY, J. Heard Mr. S. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. N. Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for the respondent no. 1; Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. P.K. Medhi, learned State Counsel for the respondent nos. 2 & 3; Mr. S. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, GDDD & GMC for the respondent nos. 4, 5 & 6; and Mr. R.J. Das, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 7, 8, 9 & 10. 2. The petitioner has claimed that he is a lease-holder of premises under M/s Muchi Koborsthan Committee pursuant to a lease deed he executed with the President of M/s Muchi Koborsthan Committee and as a permissible occupier, the petitioner was carrying out his business in the name and style of M/s Shyam Construction Co. from such leased premises located in a plot of land measuring 2 Kathas and covered by Dag no. 2140. The petitioner had thereafter, sub-let the leased premises/land to one M/s Excel Engineers Innovations India Private Limited. 3. A writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1723/2023 came to be instituted at the instance of one M/s Brihattar Guwahati Rabi Das [Muchi] Shampradai Unnayan Sangha wherein the party- respondent nos. 8, 9 & 10 herein had joined as the petitioner nos. 2, 3 & 4 respectively. In the said writ petition, the petitioners had sought for eviction of unauthorized occupants from a composite plot of land measuring about 7 Bighas 9 Lessas, covered by Dag nos. 2140, 2142 & 2145, situate at Revenue Village – Sahar Sarania Part-II, Mouza – Ulubari, District – Kamrup [Metropolitan], Assam claiming that the said composite plot of land was allotted to M/s Brihattar Guwahati Rabi Das [Muchi] Shampradai Unnayan Sangha. The petitioner herein was not arraigned as a party-respondent in W.P.[C] no. 1723/2023. 4. By an Order dated 10.06.2024, the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1723/2023 was disposed of. The relevant findings recorded and operative parts of the Order dated 10.06.2024 are extracted hereinbelow :- 7. At Paragraph-4 of the affidavit filed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup [M], there is a clear averment that land covered by Dag no. 2140 at village Sahar Sarania Part-2 under Ulubari Mouza is a Government land and the same is recorded in the name of ‘Muchi Kabarstan’. Similarly, the lands covered by Dag no.2142 and 2145 of the same village are also reserved for ‘Muchi Kabarstan’. 2140 at village Sahar Sarania Part-2 under Ulubari Mouza is a Government land and the same is recorded in the name of ‘Muchi Kabarstan’. Similarly, the lands covered by Dag no.2142 and 2145 of the same village are also reserved for ‘Muchi Kabarstan’. The land covered under Dag no. 2141 is recorded as a road. In the said affidavit there is also a clear averment that during the field verification by the Lot Mandal staff, the plots of land covered under that Dag nos. 2140, 2142 and 2145 of the village Sahar Sarania Part-2 under Ulubari Mouza in the district of Kamrup [M], which is reserved for ‘Muchi Kabarstan’, is found to be possessed by some people constructing temporary house and sports club besides some other commercial establishments. 8. In view of such specific averments made in the affidavit it is clear that the land covered by Dag nos. 2140, 2142 and 2145 of the village Sahar Sarania Part-2 under Ulubari Mouza in the district of Kamrup [M] are government lands and which are earmarked for the ‘Muchi Kabarstan’ which the petitioners’ claim are being used for graveyard of the members of the Muchi community and the petitioner no.1 is a Society is entrusted to looks into the works of the graveyard allotted by the Government. 9. Considering the prayers made in the writ petition and the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition, this Court is of the view that since there is already a representation dated 12.01.2023 before the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup [M], the same may be disposed of and if any unauthorized occupants are found by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup [M] after making the field verification, then necessary steps be taken under the provisions of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation Act, 1886 and other ancillary provisions of law to ensure that the lands which are allotted by the Government for the purpose of ‘Muchi Kabarstan’ are used for the same and all required steps be taken to ensure that the purpose of the use of the said land is not restricted by undue and unauthorized occupants. The Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup [M] will conduct the necessary verification and pass appropriate orders and take necessary steps under the provisions of law and for which purpose, if required, personal hearings may be granted to the persons found to be in possession of the land. The Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup [M] will conduct the necessary verification and pass appropriate orders and take necessary steps under the provisions of law and for which purpose, if required, personal hearings may be granted to the persons found to be in possession of the land. The effective steps be taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup [M] within a period of 60 [sixty] days from the date of a receipt of a certified copy of this order. 5. Subsequent to the Order dated 10.06.2024, the respondent authorities in the GMC proceeded to seal the premises in which the petitioner was in occupation purportedly as a permissive occupier under M/s Muchi Koborsthan Committee, on 09.08.2024. 6. On 12.08.2024, by service a notice issued under the hand of the respondent no. 6 upon M/s Excel Engineers Innovation Private Limited, the said leased premises was sealed for running the business without the requisite Trade License. After giving an opportunity of hearing by serving a notice dated 07.08.2024 in deference to the Order dated 10.06.2024, the petitioner was also served with an eviction notice dated 12.09.2024 under Rule 18[3] of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation by the Circle Officer, Guwahati Revenue Circle. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 3, it is stated that such hearing was held on 13.08.2024 and 14.08.2024 at the composite plot of land. 7. It is in the above backdrop, the instant writ petition was preferred seeking the following relief :- In the premises above, it is respectfully prayed that Your Lordship would be pleased to admit this petition and issue Rule upon the respondents to show cause as to why following writ/writs in the nature of mandamus/or other appropriate writs should not be issued directing the respondents to dispose of the representation dated 24.09.2024 made by the petitioner before the respondent authorities; and Further be pleased to modify the Hon’ble Court’s Order dated 10.06.2024 passed in W.P.[C] no. 1723/2024 on being reason of not made party the instant petitioner in this case. 8. In the representation, stated to have been filed by the petitioner on 24.09.2024, before the respondent no. 3 and annexed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition, the petitioner made a prayer to de-seal the leased premises at the earliest so that he could vacate the premises in compliance of the eviction notice dated 12.09.2024. 9. 8. In the representation, stated to have been filed by the petitioner on 24.09.2024, before the respondent no. 3 and annexed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition, the petitioner made a prayer to de-seal the leased premises at the earliest so that he could vacate the premises in compliance of the eviction notice dated 12.09.2024. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents have submitted, in unison, that the action on the part of the respondent GMC authorities regarding sealing of the premises was assailed in another writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 256/2026 before this Court and an order had already been passed in the said writ petition for de-sealing of the premises. In response, Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 256/2026, an order to de-seal the premises has already been passed on 16.02.2026. 10. In such obtaining fact situation, the first prayer made by the petitioner regarding disposal of the representation dated 24.09.2024 has been rendered infructuous. 11. In so far as the second prayer is concerned, this Court is of the clear view that an order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court earlier in a writ petition instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be challenged subsequently in another writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, even if the petitioner was not impleaded as a party in the previous writ petition. 12. In the above view of the matter, the writ petition is found not maintainable as regards the second prayer is concerned with the first prayer having been rendered infructuous, in view of the findings reached as above, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly ordered. Because of the dismissal of the writ petition, the interim order passed earlier stands accordingly recalled. There is no order as to cost.