WP(C) 1183/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. N.K. Barua, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G. Soren, learn ed State Counsel appearing for the respondents. The grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that the members of t he petitioner’s Union, who are the elephant catchers, are residing in village Ru pahi Rajgarh within Dullung Reserved Forest in the district of Lakhimpur. Acco rding to the petitioner, they are residing in the said village since the dates o f their forefathers and there is an attempt to evict them from the land in quest ion. It is also the case of the petitioner that the Government of Assam had pro posed a Scheme for rehabilitation of the families of the elephant catchers, who are occupying their land within the reserved forest and the authorities without considering such Scheme and taking out the rehabilitation program contemplating eviction of the members of the petitioners association from the land under their possession. The learned counsel for the petitioner in the backdrop of such assertion has sub mitted that the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the members of the petitioner’s association for rehabilitation in terms of the Scheme prepared by the Government of Assam, w hich has been approved by the Prime Minister’s Office vide communication dated 4 th June, 2009, before taking up their eviction. Mr. Soren, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondents placing reliance on the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Divisional For est Officer (DFO), respondent No.8, has submitted that there is no existence of any village, namely Rupahi Rajgarh, in Dullung Reserved Forest but a revenue vil lage is there adjacent to Dullung Reserved Forest namely, Rupahi Rajgarh, within the civil area of Kadam Mouza. It has also been submitted that the DFO has tak en a stand in paragraph 8 (eight) of the said affidavit that in view of the afor esaid position, there is no question of eviction by damaging houses and cultivat ions. It appears from the stand taken by the writ petitioner as well as the respondent No.8 in their pleadings that there is dispute relating to the existence of any village within Dullung Reserved Forest. Such disputed question of fact cannot i nconveniently be decided in a writ proceeding. While the petitioner’s associati on is claiming that they are residing within the Dullung Reserved Forest, the re spondent No.8, has stated on oath that there is no such village. The petitioner also claims the benefit of rehabilitation in terms of the Scheme prepared by Gov ernment of Assam. Having regard to the aforesaid position, the present petition is disposed of wit h the direction to the respondent Nos.1, 4 and 8 to consider the case of the pet itioner for rehabilitation in terms of the Scheme, if any, prepared by the Gover nment of Assam in that regard. While doing so, they shall also consider relatin g to the existence of any village within Dullung Reserved Forest. The said exer cise is directed to be completed within a period of 3 (three) months from the da te of submission of the certified copy of the order passed today alongwith the c opy of the writ petition and affidavit-in-opposition filed therein with annexure s appended thereto by the writ petitioner before the respondent No.8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No cost.