WA 328/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MODAN B LOKUR HON’BLE MR JUSTICE P.K. MUSAHARY This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.9.2009 pass ed by a learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.602/2009. In the writ petition filed by the private respondents, it was alleged th at the market had been settled on land belonging to them. Accordingly, the priva te respondents prayed for compensation for use of the land under Khatian Nos. 56 9, 571, 521 and 523 which was said to be covered by Patta Nos. 662, 686, 687,708 and 743 in village Khopati (Takimari) under the Revenue Circle of South Salmara in the District of Dhubri. The private respondents also prayed for setting asid e the orders shifting the market to some other place. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge found that the market is now continuing on Government land covered by Dag No.1558 and Patta No.1405. It was observed that since the market is settled on Government land, the settlement should be given only to the highest tenderer and not otherwise. In view of the observation of the learned Single Judge, it is quite clea r that the market has shifted from the land of the private respondents / writ pe titioners and the direction was only with regard to auction and tender of the ma rket, which is now continuing on Government land covered by Dag No.1558 and Patt a No.1405. The private respondents/writ petitioners have not preferred any appeal a gainst the order of the learned Single Judge. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant (who claims own ership of the land covered by Dag No.1558 and Patta No.1405) that the land actua lly belongs to his client and is not Government land. This writ appeal was admitted on 28-10-2009. On 3.11.2009, w hen the matter was taken up for consideration, the Division Bench prima facie ob served that the dispute i.e, description and identity of the land over which the particular market was being run was a pure question of fact and as such, the r emedy by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India was n ot the appropriate remedy. It appears that the dispute is with regard to continuation of the market over the land covered by Dag No.1558 and Patta No.1405. According to the appel lant, the land in question belongs to him, but the learned Single Judge observed that the same is actually Government land. Clearly, there is a dispute over the ownership and title of the land in question. Article 226 of the Constitution is hardly the forum for resolving su ch a dispute. Under these circumstances, we leave it to the appellant to seek an appropriate remedy in a court of competent jurisdiction available to him in law . The impugned judgment and order was stayed by this Court by an interim o rder dated 3-11-2009, meaning thereby that the market is allowed to continue on the aforesaid land without any tender being notified. The said interim order wou ld continue for another period of 3 (three) weeks, by which time, the appellant may approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for grant of appropriate relief, if so advised. The appeal is disposed of.