WP(C) 3069/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B. LOKUR In this writ petition the prayer is for restoration of possession of lan d measuring 1 Bigha 4 Katha 5 Lecha in Dag No. 48 and 3 Bigha 3 Lecha in Dag No. 51 of Village Gobardhan, Mouza Mayong in the district of Kamrup, Assam and for compensation of Rs. 5 Lakhs to the petitioner for harassment and mental agony ca used by the respondents. According to the petitioner, he was allotted land in Dag Nos. 48 and 51. It is alleged that respondent No.6 encroached on a part of this land and/or tak en forcible possession of a part thereof with the assistance of and in collusion with the Circle Officer and paramilitary forces. It is in these circumstances t hat the petitioner has prayed for restoration of possession and compensation. A reply has been filed by respondent No.6 in which it is stated that res pondent No.6 was allotted Dag No. 53 ’Ka’ and 411 ’Ka’. It is denied that respon dent No.6 has encroached on any land belonging to the petitioner. Therefore, the question of restoration of possession does not arise. The issue raised in this case clearly is one of fact with regard to the boundary of the land allotted to the petitioner and to respondent No.6. A writ p etition is clearly an inappropriate remedy for determining such a dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a reference to the Assam Lan d and Revenue Regulation, 1886. He has referred to Section 17 of the said Regula tion which defines settlement operations to include survey and demarcation, asse ssment of land revenue and record of rights. He has also referred to Regulation 23 which deals with the procedure in case of boundary disputes. As per sub-secti on (1) of Regulation 23, if there is a boundary dispute with regard to two plots of land the Survey Officer may proceed in accordance with the provisions of the statute. Having gone through the relevant provisions of the Assam Land and Revenu e Regulation which have also been referred to by the learned counsel for the pet itioner, it appears that the principal dispute in this case is with regard to en croachment on the land of the petitioner by respondent No.6. There is also a dis pute with regard to the boundaries of the land allotted to the petitioner. All t hese are issues of fact which cannot be determined in a writ petition under Arti cle 226 of the Constitution. The issues arising being serious disputed questions of fact, they can on ly be agitated in some other appropriate forum, and not under Article 226 of the Constitution. Under the circumstances, I decline to entertain this writ petition. Dismissed.