Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010141372023 2026:GAU-AS:11098 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3813/2023 ARMAN KHAN S/O LATE AZIBAR KHAN, R/O VILL- GOMA, P.O.- GOMAFULBARI, P.S.- TARABARI, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED B THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENT (ROAD DIVISION) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS DIVISION) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD (ROADS DIVISION) BARPETA ASSAM DIST- BARPETA PIN-781301 4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BARPETA P.O.-BARPETA DIST-BARPETA (ASSAM) PIN-781301 5:THE CIRCLE OFFICER CHENGA REVENUE CIRCLE Page No.# 2/3 P.O.-CHENGA DIST- BARPETA PIN-78130 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Das, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. S. Roy, Jr. GA, Assam : Mr. P. Nayak, Addl. AG, Assam BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 07.08.2026 Heard Mr. S. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. P. Nayak, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3. I have also heard Mr. S. S. Roy, the learned Junior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 2. Pursuant to the order dated 15.07.2026, Mr. S. S. Roy, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the District Administration, Barpeta has produced before this Court an instruction dated 27.07.2026 issued by the Circle Officer, Chenga Revenue Circle wherein it is mentioned that due eviction notices were issued on 19.01.2023 and further the road was constructed only in Dag No.20 and not in Dag No.19 and 21 of Patta No.184. The instruction dated 27.07.2026 which has been Page No.# 3/3 placed by Mr. S. S. Roy, the learned Junior Government Advocate is kept on record and marked with the letter “X”. 3. It is the opinion of this Court that in view of the demarcation being carried out and the specific stand taken by the Respondents that the road is constructed in Dag No.20 and not in the Petitioner’s land and the eviction was carried out by following the due process only in respect to Dag No.20, this Court cannot enter into the factual adjudication as to whether while carrying out the eviction in Dag No.20, the Respondents have encroached or trespassed into the Dag No.21 of the Petitioner. 4. 4. Considering the above, this Court therefore is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition for which the writ petition stands dismissed. 5. The dismissal of the instant writ petition however shall not preclude or prejudice the Petitioner to avail remedies before the competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction. 6. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. JUDGE Comparing Assistant