WP(C) 6132/2006 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA Heard Mr. R.Gogoi learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also hea rd Ms.B.Das learned Central Government Counsel appearing for respondent nos.1&2 as well as Mr. H.Rahman learned State counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3,4,5 and 6. The instant application has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to complete the survey and dem arcation work pertaining to the petitioner’s land as well as the land allotted t o the Defence Department. The petitioner’s case in brief is that the petitioner, a permanent resident of L akhopara in the Sonitpur district, had inherited a plot of land measuring 4 bigh as 18 lechas under Patta No.46,Dag Nos.72 and 74 which was purchased by his gran d father way back in the year 1939. Nearby his land, the Government of Assam has allotted land to the Defence Department and in doing so the petitioner’s land w as also included with the land so allotted to the Defence Department. The furthe r case of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s land being periodic patta land , the same cannot be handed over to the Defence Department without first acqui ring the land following due procedure of law .The petitioner therefore approache d the Circle Officer, Dhekiajuli Revenue Circle, respondent No.6 alongwith the Defence Estate Officer, Tezpur Circle, respondent No.2 praying for a joint su rvey and demarcation of the land so allotted to the Defence Department as well as the petitioner’s land, but awaiting for more than a year when nothing ha ppened, the petitioner has approached this court by way of the instant writ peti tion with the aforesaid prayer. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 wh erein it has been specifically contended that a representative of Circle Officer , Dhekiajuli and representative of Defence Estate Officer jointly had carried ou t survey of the aforesaid land on 15.12.05 and found that the Defence Department is occupying the land which is lawfully owned and possessed by the departmen t. It has also been contended that the grievance made by the petitioner being of civil dispute, the same cannot be resolved in the instant writ petition and hen ce the writ petition being not maintainable is liable to be dismissed . The rele vant para-13 is quoted hereinbelow: That, with regard to the statement made in paragraph 12 and 13 of the writ pet ition; the deponent denies the allegation that the respondent did not conduct th e survey/demarcation of the land as per the petitioner’s request and appeal. On 3.5.2006 and 4.5.2006, a joint survey of the site was carried out by the represe ntatives, interalia, of the offices of Circle Office, Dhekiajuli; 4 Corps Zona l workshop D.E.O., Tezpur Circle ; G.E. Tezpur, and the petitioner was duly info rmed about the said joint survey to demarcate the plot of lands covered by the dag no. 72 and 74( of the year 1968) vide D.E.O. Tezpur Office letter no.DEO/ TZP/ADM/ 98(B)/ VI/161, dated 25th April, 2006. But he did not attend the joint survey on both the dates. During the survey it was again confirmed that under th e said dag no. 72 and 74, the plot of land belongs to the Ministry of Defence, G overnment of India . In spite of giving all necessary consideration, the petitio ner is repeatedly demanding for resurvey of the area just to confuse the authori ties for his ulterior motives, which is also evident from the fact that the peti tioner has submitted the informations before the Hon’ble court selectively only. In the context of the fact situation the writ petition is not entertainable and liable to be dismissed, because no civil dispute can be resolved through writ . (Copies of the survey report held on 03/05/2006 and 04/05/2006, and the letter DEO/ TZP/ADM/ 98(B)/ VI/161, dated 25th April, 2006, are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-H,I and J respectively) . From the foregoing statements it reveals that petitioner might have a bo undary dispute with the respondent nos 1&2 who possessed the neighbouring land f or utilization of defence purpose. It is not a case of the petitioner that his l and has been occupied by or encroached upon by respondent nos.1&2 without any au thority of law. That being the case there is no scope for invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by issuing a writ o f mandamus as prayed for. The petition is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. N o cost. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.