WP(C) 5610/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. B.D. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the 2 writ petitioners. In W.P.(C) 5610/2009, Mr. J. Patowari, appears for the State respondents. In W.P .(C) 4754/2007 Mr. J. Singh, learned senior counsel appears for the Railway Aut horities, whereas the State is represented by Ms. H.M. Pukan, learned Government Advocate. The petitioner Smti. Mirjuma Bora is the wife of the petitioner Ujjal Bo ra and in both the proceeding, the process of eviction initiated by the State Au thorities from the Government land under the occupation of the petitioner is put to challenge. In the earlier round in W.P.(C) 6265/06, this Court in its order dated 2 0.7.2007 recorded that the land under the petitioner’s occupation is Government land reserved for the Railways and except for the long possession and applicatio n filed for settlement, the petitioners have no right to challenge the process o f eviction. In the interim order passed on 11.9.2007 in W.P.(C) 4754/07 filed by Smt . Mrijuma Bord, W/o Ujjal Bora, this Court refers to a proceeding before the Sup reme Court in S.L.P. No. 8186/2007, where a status quo order was passed on 2.5.2 007 with regard to the eviction notice dated 30.8.2007 challenged in the writ pr oceeding. It appears from the D.C’s affidavit that subsequently the Supreme Court on 27.7.2009 has disposed of the S.L.P. 8186/07 by recording that the dispute be tween the Railways and the State Authorities over the said land was resolved out of Court and the encroached public lands have been handed over by the Railway A uthorities to the State, for construction of a traffic rotary at the busy T.C. S chool junction point in Guwahati. It is seen that the present eviction process h as been initiated in furtherance of the said public project to construct a rotar y point to ease traffic congestion. Mr. B.D. Goswami, appearing for the petitioners submits that some others who were occupying Government lands in the petitioner’s vicinity have been sett led with land and the petitioner’s claim for land settlement should also be favo urably considered by the State Authorities. But it is submitted by Ms. Phukan th at the petitioner’s application for settlement of the land was rejected by the G overnment on 8.12.2009 on the ground that the land in question is required for e xecution of a public scheme. Considering the fact that the petitioners’ application for settlement of the occupied Government land has already been rejected and further considering that land in question is needed for a public purpose, I am not inclined to enter tain these writ applications having regard to the demands of larger public inter est as I feel that private claim of the petitioners must yield to public interes t. However the rejection of the writ petition should not come in the way of State A uthorities considering allotment of some other lands to the petitioner, if such settlement is found justified by the Government as per the norms in force. The writ petitions stand dismissed accordingly. The interim order if any stands recalled.