WA 468/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY [Ranjan Gogoi, J.] Heard Mr. T.C. Khatri, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner and Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned standing counsel for the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council. In the writ petition out of which this appeal has arisen i.e. WP(C) No.3 267/2000, an eviction notice dated 14.03.2000 was put to challenge. By the said notice the appellant/writ petitioner No.1 was asked to vacate land measuring 1.0 00 hectares situated in Borlongfer District Council Reserve Forest, failing whic h, he was to be evicted from the said land. The petitioner No.1 submitted a representation dated 18.03.2000 against the aforesaid notice dated 14.03.2000 and thereafter instituted the writ petitio n in question along with 3(three) other persons. The stand of the appellant/writ petitioner in the representation filed as well as in the writ petition is that the land covered by periodic Patta No.6 Dag No.37/2 and 38/2 was earlier allotte d to him,. The said land is located in Chotalongfer under Jamunapar Mouja No.3. According to the petitioner he was in occupation of the said land allotted to hi m and no other land was in his possession. The other petitioners in the writ pet ition filed, had raised a similar stand and had referred to other lands settled with them covered by different periodic pattas having other Dag numbers, details of which need not be mentioned. The said petitioners i.e. petitioner Nos.2, 3 a nd 4 claimed that no notice of eviction was served on them though they have been threatened with eviction from their patta land as in the case of the petitioner No.1. The respondents in the counter affidavit filed had stated that as the pe titioners were found to be in illegal occupation of Reserve Forest land in Borlo ngfer District Council Reserve Forest, they had already been evicted from such l and along with other persons on 14.06.2000. Having regard to the fact that the petitioners had already been evicted which fact was not denied by the petitioners, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by holding that in the exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, there should not be any order of restoration o f possession. Consequently the writ petition was disposed of by observing that, as the respondents have indicated in their affidavit that they do not have any o bjection in the continuance of occupation/possession of the petitioners over lan d settled with them, such areas of land so settled with the petitioners should b e allowed to be retained by them. Aggrieved this writ petition has been filed. The appellants/petitioners, admittedly, have been evicted from what the respondents contend to be encroached land included within the District Council R eserve Forest. Such eviction had been taken place as far back as on 14.06.2000. A period of 10(ten) years have elapsed in the meantime. Re-induction of the appe llants into the said land can follow only upon determination of their title to t he land from which they have been evicted or if such eviction has taken place fr om the land allotted to them in respect of which there is no dispute with regard to title. Adjudication of such questions is not appropriate in a writ proceedin g. Mr. Khatri, learned counsel for the appellant has raised a contention th at in the present case there is no dispute as to title. Mr. Khatri is right but only in respect of the land allotted to the petitioners and not in respect of su ch land, which is claimed to be under their illegal possession being part of the Reserve Forest. That apart, the question whether in the guise of eviction the p etitioners can be evicted from their patta land is a question that has already b een answered by the learned Single Judge by directing the possession of the peti tioners over such land to be maintained. In the event such possession is sought to be disturbed or has been disturbed, the petitioners are not without their rem edies under the law. For all the aforesaid reasons, we do not consider the present to be a fi t case for interference with the order dated 07.01.2008 passed in WP(C) No.3267/ 2000 as well as the order dated 25.06.2008 passed in Review Petition No.55/2008. Consequently this appeal shall stand dismissed subject to the observations abov e.