Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010091552025 2026:GAU-AS:9841 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2345/2025 KAUSTABH KALITA AND ANR S/O NADESWAR KALITA, R/O UTTARAYAN GREENS, BISHNU RABHA PATH, KERAKUCHI, P.O. AND P.S.- BASISTHA, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN-781029 2: HIMADRI DUTTA W/O KAUSTABH KALITA R/O UTTARAYAN GREENS BISHNU RABHA PATH KERAKUCHI P.O. AND P.S.- BASISTHA DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN-78102 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6, ASSAM 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KAMRUP (M) ASSAM HENGRABARI GUWAHATI-36 4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER Page No.# 2/3 DISPUR REVENUE CIRCLE DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM GUWAHATI-781028 5:THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED (ASSAM DIVISION) REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER INDIAN OIL AOD STATE OFFICE INDIAN OIL BHAWAN SECTOR-III NOONMATI DIST- KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI-78102 Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. A Mobaraque Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. SR Baruah For respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 Ms. PR Mahanta For respondent No.2 Mr. N Deka, Senior Advocate Mr. M Gogoi for respondent No.5 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 17.07.2026 Heard Mr. A Mobaraque, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Also heard Mr. SR Baruah, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4; Ms. PR Mahanta, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the respondent No.2; Mr. N Deka, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. M Gogoi, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of Page No.# 3/3 the respondent No.5. 2. The present dispute so raised in the instant proceedings is a dispute pertaining to encroachment upon the land of the petitioners by the respondent No.5 in concert and in collusion of the respondent No.4. 3. The respondent No.4 categorically denies any role in respect to steps taken by the respondent No.5 to erect the boundary wall in question. The respondent No.5 in the affidavit has also categorically stated that they have constructed the boundary wall within their land. 4. The dispute between the petitioners and the respondent No.5 in the opinion of this Court is purely a civil dispute as to whether there has been any encroachment over the land of the petitioners or not. This purely civil dispute cannot be adjudicated in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. The petitioners would be well advised to approach the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction or invoke the provisions of the Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2010. 6. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition, for which, the writ petition stands dismissed. 7. Before parting with the records, this Court makes it very clear that the dismissal of the instant writ petition shall not preclude or prejudice the petitioners to approach the competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction or the learned Tribunal under the Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2010. 8. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. JUDGE Comparing Assistant