WP(C) 5829/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr. B. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rahman, learned coun sel for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 and Mr. Saikia, learned for Respondent Nos.4,5 and 6. Respondent No.7, the National Youth Club, Algapur, Hailakandi, Assam, though imp leaded vide the order dated 28.07.2010 passed by this Court in M.C. No.2281/2010 is unrepresented today. However, in view of the pleadings already on record, this Court is of the view t hat the issues raised can be answered. The petitioners’ pleaded case, in short, is that their father/husband had purcha sed a plot of land measuring 12 Katha covered by 2nd R.S. Patta No.57, Dag No.35 7 of Vill. Bhatisangjurai within the territorial limits of P.S. Algapur in the d istrict of Hailakandi by a registered deed of sale dated 02.05.1988. According to them, on this land they had constructed a building measuring 28’ x 18’ at an estimated cost of Rs.2,60,000.00 with a culvert in front thereof. They have al leged that the State respondents while in the process of widening N.H. No.154 r unning by the side of the said property had acquired land in the vicinity includ ing that of the petitioners measuring 6 Katha with the aforementioned building. Their grievance is that though, the building belongs to them, compensation there for has been offered to the Respondent No.7 as the owner thereof. This Court vide order dated 07.06.2010 while noticing that the petitioners, in t heir affidavit-in-reply filed in response to the one on behalf of the Deputy Com missioner, Hailakandi, Assam have brought on record a document, prima facie in dicating that the Respondent No.7 is the owner of the land covered by Dag No.361 of kheraj periodic patta No.93 and not by Dag No.357 claimed by the petitioner directed him (Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi) to file an affidavit explaining t he said satiation. In the affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi through the Sub-Di visional Officer (Sadar), Hailakandi, Assam it has, in substance been stated tha t in the joint survey conducted by the Revenue Officers and the personnel of the N.H. Authority in the month of July, 2007, a Assam Type House measuring 25’-6 x 12’-3 with R.C.C posts and ties C.I. Sheet roofing over timber trusses, et c. belonging to the National Youth Club (Respondent No.7) was found in existence on the land in question and that on the acquisition thereof in the same process , an amount of Rs.1,32,900.00 had been awarded to the said respondent on 08.07.2 007. According to the answering respondent, the culvert constructed by the peti tioners on the North Eastern side of the said house was over the P.W.D. khas lan d for which no valuation had been made. It has been categorically stated that o n the said land, no RCC building was found to be in existence. The answering re spondent has further stated that after the aforementioned building was abandoned by the Respondent No.7, the petitioners took possession thereof and constructe d a new door and a window by replacing the name plate of the Club house and star ted grocery shop there on and claiming compensation for the same very cunningly. In view of the above categorical stand on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner, Hai lakandi, which amongst others throw up highly disputed facts, this Court having regard to the controversy raised is not inclined to conduct a fishing and a rovi ng inquiry into the same in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. In the above view of the matter these petitions stand dismissed. The petitioner if advised may pursue alternative remedy in law. No costs.