Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010090772018 2026:GAU-AS:10217 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2775/2018 MAZIBUR RAHMAN AND 2 ORS. S/O LATE ABDUL JABBAR, R/O VILLAGE NO. 2 DOLABARI, MOUZA BHAIRABPAD, PS TEZPUR, DIST. SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN-784001 2: YUSUF ALI S/O LATE ABDUL JABBAR R/O VILLAGE NO. 2 DOLABARI MOUZA BHAIRABPAD PS TEZPUR DIST. SONITPUR ASSAM PIN-784001 3: SULEMAN ALI @ SULEMAN AHMED S/O LATE ABDUL JABBAR R/O VILLAGE NO. 2 DOLABARI MOUZA BHAIRABPAD PS TEZPUR DIST. SONITPUR ASSAM PIN-78400 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HOME AND POLITICAL DEPARTMENT, ASSAM SACHIVALAYA, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM DR. B K KAKATI ROAD ULUBARI GUWAHATI-781007 Page No.# 2/4 ASSAM 3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SONITPUR TEZPUR ASSAM 4:NOMAL MAHATO ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SONTIPUR TEZPUR 5:DILIPDHAR BHUYAN IN CHARGE BORGHAT POLICE STATION PO BORGHAT DIST. SONITPUR ASSAM 6:SATPAL TAYEL S/O VED PRAKASH TAYEL R/O VILLAGE-BARHOLIA MOUZA BHARABPAD PO AND PS TEZPUR DIST. SONITPUR ASSAM PIN-784001 7:RAJESH TAYEL S/O VED PRAKASH TAYEL R/O VILLAGE-BARHOLIA MOUZA BHARABPAD PO AND PS TEZPUR DIST. SONITPUR ASSAM PIN-78400 Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. P Mahanta Advocate for the respondent(s): Ms. M Barman, Govt. Advocate B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Page No.# 3/4 ORDER 24.07.2026 Heard Mr. P Mahanta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Also heard Ms. M Barman, the learned Government Advocate, who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking a direction upon the Police Authorities, more particularly, the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the land protected by order dated 11.04.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Sonitpur, at Tezpur in Criminal Revision No.14(S-2)/2018 and not to arrest or harass the petitioners without following the procedure of law. 3. The record reveals that an order was passed on 04.04.2018 by the Additional District Magistrate Sonitpur, wherein it is mentioned that as per the report of the Circle Officer, Tezpur Revenue Circle, the land in question was under the physical possession of one Sri Satpal Tayal and Sri Rajesh Tayal, and the opposite parties were forcefully obstructing in constructing the Southern Boundary wall, without any locus standi. It was further mentioned in the order dated 04.04.2018 that the Circle Officer, Tezpur Revenue Circle, as well as the Executive Magistrate should be present to maintain law and order during the time of construction of the said Southern Boundary wall with the help of the Police personnel. 4. The petitioner, being aggrieved, preferred a revision application before the learned Sessions Judge, which was registered and numbered as Criminal Revision No.14(S-2)/2018. An order was passed on 11.04.2018 (wrongly shown in the order as 11.04.2017) whereby the revision was admitted and the order Page No.# 4/4 dated 04.04.2018 issued by the learned Additional District Magistrate Sonitpur, Tezpur was stayed until further orders. 5. It is the further case of the petitioners that in spite of the said orders, the respondent authorities, and more particularly, the respondent Nos.4 and 5 were taking action against the petitioners and as such have sought for the relief as already mentioned hereinabove. 6. The record reveals that when the petition was filed on 03.05.2018, the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court merely issued notice. After issuance of notice, till date the petitioner had not been able to effect service upon the private respondents. 7. Mr. P. Mahanta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that to his information the order dated 04.04.2018 passed by the Additional District Magistrate Sonitpur, Tezpur has been set aside. 8. This Court further takes note of that the dispute between the petitioners and the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are purely boundary disputes. Merely by arraying certain officials of the State Government, a purely civil dispute between the petitioners and the respondent Nos.6 and 7 cannot be converted into a dispute for entertaining a public law remedy. Under such circumstances, as the remedy of the petitioners lies before the Competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition, for which, the writ petition stands dismissed. 9. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. JUDGE Comparing Assistant