Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010018812016 2026:GAU-AS:10458 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3194/2016 NATIONAL BOARDS LIMITED A COMPANY HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT PANIKHAITI GHY.-781026 and HEAD OFFICE AT 5 FANCY LANE KOLKATA AND IS REP. BY ONE OF ITS DIRECTORS RAJ KUMAR BAJAJ. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND10 ORS REP. BY THE DY. COMMISSIONER KAMRUP M DIST. GHY.-781001. ------------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. M. Kataki, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M. Dutta, Sr. Advocate Ms. M. Barman, Govt. Advocate Mr. D. Malakar, Advocate BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 29.07.2026 Heard Mr. M. Kataki, the learned counsel appearing on behalf Page No.# 2/3 of the petitioner. Ms. M. Barman, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Mr. M. Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. D. Malakar, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 7. 2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in taking action on the basis of the FIRs filed by the petitioner for prosecuting the private respondents. The petitioner has also sought for relief that the land which is under the occupation of the private respondents be retrieved by the official respondents and thereupon the said land be redelivered to the respondent No. 6, who is the Recovery Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal. 3. This Court has perused the materials on record and is of the opinion that the reliefs which have been sought for in the present writ petition, under no circumstances can be granted in favour of the petitioner. 4. On account of non-registration of the FIRs, the petitioner ought to have availed the statutory remedy. For non-registration or for not taking due action on the basis of the filing of the FIRs, the petitioner had the opportunity of availing the statutory Page No.# 3/3 remedy as provided under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. If the petitioner was aggrieved as regards the grabbing of the petitioner's land, the petitioner had the opportunity of availing the remedy before the Special Tribunal set up in terms of the Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2010. The petitioner cannot, by way of invoking the public law remedy, convert this proceeding into a proceeding for recovery of the possession of the land. 5. Under such circumstances, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the instant writ petition is totally misconceived and not maintainable. 6. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. 7. Before parting with the record, this Court, however, observes that the dismissal of the instant writ petition is on the ground that this Court is not inclined to entertain the present dispute and, as such, the same shall not prejudice or preclude the petitioner from approaching the appropriate forum, if so advised. 8. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. JUDGE Comparing Assistant