WP(C) 5014/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. GZ Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Das, learne d standing counsel, Railways appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 as well as Mr. Soren, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 8 to 10. The petitioners have filed the present petition praying for a direction to the respondent Railways not to interfere with their peaceful possession of th e land, which according to the petitioner No. 1, she has purchased from the righ tful owner. The petitioners’ case in the present writ petition is that though the pe titioner No. 1 purchased the plot of land measuring 8 lechas covered by Dag No. 208/51 and 2 bighas 3 lechas covered by Dag No. 207/50 of KP Patta 58/20 of vill age Dhopertol in the district of Kokrajhar from Bajendra Narayan Dev and Prabhat Narayan Dev, who claim to be the rightful owners, on 4.12.1998, by a registered deed of sale and the petitioner No. 1’s name has been mutated in place of her v endors, the Estate Officer initiated an eviction proceeding issuing notice under sub Section (1) of Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised O ccupation) Act, 1971, for evicting the petitioners, from the aforesaid land thou gh the said land is not acquired in favour of the Railways. It is also the case of the petitioners that though on receipt of the said notice they prayed for gra nt of more time to file objection, the eviction operation was carried on 11.4.20 07 and the petitioners have been evicted from the land purchased by the petition er No. 1. It is also the case of the petitioners that thereafter the petitioner No. 1 filed an application before the Assistant Settlement Officer for resolving the dispute as the Railways claim that the land purchased by the petitioner No. 1 has been acquired by the Govt. in Land acquisition proceeding. According to t he petitioners the Assistant Settlement officer thereafter upon hearing both the parties passed the final order on 17.6.2007 to the effect that the land measuri ng 2 kathas 12 lechas, which is part of Dag No. 207/50 of KP Patta No. 58/20, ha ve been acquired for the railways and not the land which was purchased by the pe titioner No. 1. It is also the contention of the petitioners that after the said order dated 17.6.2007 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer they came to p ossess the land again, but the Railway Administration is disturbing the petition ers time and again. In the backdrop of the aforesaid assertion the relief, already noticed a bove, has been claimed in the present writ petition. The Railway Administration has filed the affidavit-in-opposition denying the contention of the writ petitioners in the writ petition. According to the R ailway Administration the land which is in possession of the petitioners has bee n acquired by the authority under the provision of the Land Acquisition Act, in respect of which an eviction proceeding under provision of the 1971 Act has been initiated and the petitioners were evicted on 11.4.2007. It appears from the pleadings in the writ petition that the petitioners claim the right, title and interest in respect of the land in question by virtue of the sale deed dated 4.12.1998. It also appears that the proceeding under the provision of the 1971 Act was earlier initiated by the Railway Administration a nd eventually the petitioners were evicted, pursuant to such proceeding, from th e land in question on 11.4.2007. According to the petitioners they came to repos sess the said land in view of the order dated 17.6.2007 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer. The relief claimed in the present petition cannot be granted unless the right, title and interest of the petitioners is declared in respect of the land in question. The Writ Court cannot declare the right, title and interest of the petitioners over the land more so when the claim of the petitioners have been de nied by the Railway Administration. That being the position, the relief claimed in the present petition cann ot be granted. The petitioners may, however, approach the appropriate civil court for d eclaration of their right, title and interest and also for injunction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observations. No costs.