WP(C) 923/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T VAIPHEI In this writ petition, the petitioners are seeking the intervention of this Cour t against the proposed demolition of the Phula Hngsha Path alias Sankardeva Path Bye-Lane situate at Rupnagar which is connected with the Brindabhan path as wel l as Jana Seba Path and Ma Chandi Path and for restraining the respondent author ities from closing the gates of the petitioners by constructing the boundary wal l of the Gauhati Medical College. 2. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioner No. 1 is the owner of the plot measuring 2 kathas covered by Dag No. 338(Old), 1343 (New) of KP Patta No. 9(Old), 67(new) of Ulubari village, Ulubari Mouza, which she purchased from one Hena Rahman, w/o late Sayadur Rahman on 4.1.1991 vide the Sale Deed bearing the same date. Since then, she has been possessing the plot by constructing RC C building, paying land revenue and electricity bills regularly. After effecting mutation, KP Patta No. 195 was issued by the Revenue authorities on 2.9.2008 in her name and in the name of the petitioner No. 2, who is her husband. The peti tioner No. 2 also purchased the adjacent plot of land measuring 3.38 Acr in the year 1991 from one Dhrubananda Das whereafter the plot got mutated in his name. The petitioner No. 3 also purchased the adjoining plot measuring 1 katha 15 lec has covered by Dag No. 331, KP Patta No. 48, which is now under his possession. Similarly, the remaining petitioners also purchased the plot in the neighbourho od from different vendors and all of them including the petitioners No. 1,2 and 3 have been using the said Phulo hansa Path, the black topping of the surface wh ereof has been done by the respondents No. 5 and 6 at their request. In this way , the petitioners have been using this road without any objection or disturbance from any quarter including the respondent No. 7 (Executive Engineer, PWD (MCC D ivn., Bhangagarh, Guwahati). According to the petitioners, they have no other a pproach road to their respective houses apart from this road, which is connected with Brindaban Path and the Jana Seba Path, Guwahati. 3 It is the further case of the petitioners that a few weeks back, the res pondent No. 7 engaged Aruna Construction Company ( the Company for short) to co nstruct the boundary wall of the entire plot belonging to Gauhati Medical Hospit al and both he and the representatives of the Company came to the site on 15.2.2 011 and 16.2.2011 for survey and construction of the boundary wall. At the inst ance of the respondent No. 7, the company started to demolish the said 28 feet w ide Phulo hansa Path without getting the land demarcated by the Deputy Commissio ner, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. This was immediately protested by the petitioners as well as other local people which compelled the respondent No. 7 and others to l eave the site but after threatening them that the demolition would be carried ou t with the help of the police. According to the petitioners, the said road was constructed in the year 1974 and has been developed by the Gauhati Municipal Cor poration about 4-6 years back and does not lie within the land of Gauhati Medica l College, a fact which can be proved by inspecting the relevant land record if the same is requisitioned by this Court. The respondent Nos. 3,4 and 7 are dete rmined to demolish the said road before issuing notice to the petitioners and wi thout first getting the site demarcated by the competent authority. The entire land of respondent No. 4, 5 and 7 are lying at a very low lying area and covered by water with four/five feet deep and without filling the earth, the company is in the process of demolishing the existing road and evicting the petitioners fr om their lands. As they have been using this road along the general public for the last 40 years, they have every right to use the road. The petitioners, ther efore, pray that an appropriate writ be issued upon the respondent authorities r estraining them from demolishing the said road or from otherwise closing their g ates. 4. Both the Gauhati Medical College (respondent No. 3 and 4) and the Gauhat i Municipal Corporation contested the writ petition and filed their respective a ffidavits-in-opposition. The stance taken by the Medical College is that except for the petitioner Nos. 1,2 and 6, who belong to one and the same family, none of the remaining petitioners have given particulars of the plots they are claimi ng to own in the disputed area; in fact, the revenue record does not indicate th at they own any land in the area adjacent to the said road. It is pointed out b y the answering respondents that the said road is located on the encroached land covered by Dag Nos. 1287 and 1698, which belong to them and no land has been de marcated for any road, be it Phulo Hansa Path or otherwise on those lands as per the record of the Revenue Authority and that only one family comprising of the petitioners No. 1, 2 and 6 are using the encroached plot of land for the purpose of a road. According to the respondents, a copy of the letter dated 22.2.2010 of the Circle officer, Guwahati Revenue Circle along with the sketch map annexed thereto categorically stated that ’100 feet long and 20 feet wide road’ situate d on the southern side of the land covered by Dag Nos. 1287 and 1698 belonging t o the Gauhati Medical College and another four plots of land located on the sout hern side of road to the extent of 10 feet and 16 feet have been encroached upon and that from the aforesaid letter, it is abundantly clear that the so called Phulo Hansa Path is not a public road and the Government has not allotted an y land for a public road and, as such, no one has any legal right to use the lan d belonging to the Gauhati Medical College; it is the Gauhati Medical College wh ich alone has the legal right to construct the boundary wall by covering the lan d which is standing in its name. It is denied that the Gauhati Municipal Corpor ation has ever approached Gauhati Medical College authority for a permission to construct a road on the land of the latter: the question of development of Phulo Hansa Path, therefore, does not arise. It is asserted by the answering respond ents that the local residents can have no interest on the said road as the same meets its dead-end at the residences of the petitioner Nos. 1,2 and 6 and there are several other roads in the locality for the movement of the local residents; it is only the family of the petitioner Nos. 1,2 and 6, who are using this roa d by encroaching the land of Gauhati Medical College. It is also asserted that the construction/demolition was done only after demarcation of the land was done by the revenue authorities wherein it has been found that there was encroachmen t of 10 to 16 feet of the land of the Gauhati Medical College by the petitioners . The Gauhati Medical College is now facing acute shortage of land as Cancer Hos pital, a Super-Speciality Hospital, Sewerage Treatment Plant, the quarters for D octors and Staff along with their car parking lot are being constructed in the v acant land to facilitate better health care facilities to the public. The writ petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. The Gauhati Municipal Corpo ration in their affidavit-in-opposition also supports the case of the Gauhati Me dical College and it is, therefore, not necessary to deal with them. 5. On reading the pleadings of the petitioners and the affidavits of the re spondents in juxtaposition, it becomes loud and clear that the issues raised by the petitioners involve serious and complicated question of facts. The question s as to whether the disputed plots are encroached lands or not; or whether they belong to the petitioners covered by their KP Pattas or not; or whether the disp uted plots fall within the land of the Gauhati Medical College; or whether Phulo Hansa Path is a public road or a private road; or whether the petitioners along with the local residents have been using the said road for about 40 years or n ot; or whether the petitioners have easementary rights over the disputed road o r not; or whether this road is used by the local residents or only by the petiti oners or whether the petitioner No. 3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15 and 16 have an y plot adjacent to the disputed road, are to be, and can be, decided only by add uction of both oral and documentary evidence by the parties. A writ petition in volving serious disputed questions of facts which requires consideration of evid ence which is not on record, will not normally be entertained by a court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is true that many matters could be decided after referring to the contentions raised in the affidavits and counter-affidavits, but that would hardly be a ground for exe rcise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in cas e of serious and complicated questions of facts. In other words, such seriously disputed questions or rival claims of the parties with regard to easementary ri ghts or the long and uninterrupted use of the road by the petitioners, etc. are to be investigated and determined on the basis of evidence which may be led by t he parties in a properly instituted civil suit rather than by a court exercising prerogative of issuing writs. In my judgment, the issues raised by the petitio ners in this writ petition do not warrant the interference of a writ court. 6. The offshoot of the foregoing discussion is that this writ petition is n ot maintainable and is, therefore, dismissed. However, on the facts and the cir cumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their respective costs. The respondent authorities are, however, directed to maintain the status quo as on today for a period of fifteen days to enable the petitioners to make an alternat ive arrangement.