WP(C) 6606/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.D.AGARWAL Heard Sri K K Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri K N Choudhury, learned Additional Advocate General for the State respondents. 2. Facts of the case in a nutshell are that the father of the writ petitioner purchased 20 Bighas of land covered by Dag No. 91 (Old) under K Patta No. 20 (old), under village Thakurkuchi, Mouza- Panbari, District- Kamrup, in a Revenue Auction Sale in the year 1974. 3. The appeal against the auction sale was rejected by the Board of Revenue and in this way, the sale became final, which was followed by mutation of the land in the name of the petitioner’s father. Long thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, initiated the proceeding under Section 170 of the Assam La nd and Revenue Regulation to cancel the Patta on the ground that the land purcha sed by the petitioner’s father in auction is covered by Chapter X and no such la nd can be acquired by a non-tribal. The order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 1 4.06.1989 was challenged by the writ petitioner before the Board of Revenue. The appeal was dismissed on 29.10.1990. Feeling aggrieved the writ petitioner filed Civil Rule No. 2444 of 1990. 4. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed on 31.10.1995, holding t hat the provisions of Chapter X will not be applicable, inasmuch, as the petitio ner’s father had purchased the land in the Revenue Auction Sale. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another writ petition being WP( C) No. 5872 of 2003, seeking a direction to the Government to demarcate the land purchased by his father in auction sale. This writ petition was disposed of on 11.11.2003, directing the respondents to pass consequential orders and take nece ssary steps to make a survey of the land to identify the present Dag Numbers and co-relate the same to the present Dag Numbers and then to correct the present D ag Numbers by showing the petitioner as a land holder. In this way, the present writ petition is third in the series. In the present writ petition, the petition er is seeking a direction to the respondents to restore the possession of the pe titioner since he has been dispossessed by few persons and if necessary cancel t he allotment orders in the name of tribal people. The aforesaid prayer has been made on the plea that during the pendency of the first writ petition, the revenu e authorities had allotted the entire land to some private individuals and hande d over the possession of land to them and in that way, the petitioner has been d ispossessed. 6. Sri Choudhury, learned Additional Advocate General, submitted th at the petitioner was never in possession and if at all, the petitioner or his f ather had taken possession of the land and if their land has been encroached or occupied by private individuals, the petitioner should have approached a compete nt Civil Court. The learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that desp ite sincere efforts made by the respondents they could not trace out the old rec ords pertaining to Dag No. 91 of Thakurkuchi (NC). Sri Choudhury, further submit ted that as per the official records, the land is under occupation of the tribal people and as such, it will not be possible to put the petitioner in possession of the land without a decree from a Civil Court. 7. On the other hand, Sri Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel for the p etitioner submitted that since the Government has issued allotment orders in fav our of private individuals they are competent to cancel the allotment orders to put the writ petitioner in possession. 8. I have already mentioned earlier that the present writ proceedin g is the third round litigation in the High Court. The second writ petition was filed in the year 2003. In the said writ petition, no allegation was made that t he State respondents had dispossessed the writ petitioner from the land purchase d by his father. Rather in Paragraph-16, it was alleged that the petitioner’s po ssession was being disturbed by some tribal villagers. In other words, there was no specific allegation that the petitioner was dispossessed during the period 1 990-95, as has been alleged in the present writ petition. 9. Be that as it may, in view of the disputed facts regarding alleg ed possession and dispossession of the writ petitioner and in view of uncertaint y of Dag Numbers, it is not advisable for this Court to issue any writ in the na ture of mandamus to put the writ petitioner in possession of the land, sold by t he Government and purchased by the petitioner’s father in the year 1974 and any such direction is not warranted in the writ jurisdiction since admittedly, almos t the entire land is under occupation of tribal people and the land also falls u nder the Tribal Belt. 10. Before concluding the Judgment, I may mention here that in the l etter dated 05.06.2006, written by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro) to th e Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Assam, Revenue Department, it was su ggested that the writ petitioner may be settled with some other alternative land in some other village outside the Tribal Belt. Since the writ petitioner’s fath er had purchased the land in revenue auction sale and since the writ petitioner has not been able to get back his land, the Government may consider the aforesai d proposal mooted by the Deputy Commissioner. If settlement of an alternative la nd is also not possible the Government may consider payment of compensation to t he writ petitioner after holding negotiations. 11. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands dispo sed of.