MC 939/2008 BEFORE HON’BLR MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA. This Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the Respondents No.8 to 16 in t he writ petition praying for vacating the interim order dated 30.10.2007 passed by this Court. The interim order was passed ex parte against the said responden ts, who are the applicants in the Miscellaneous Application. The petitioner is the Principal and Secretary of a college called, K.C. Das Commerce College situated in Guwahati. According to the petitioner, the col lege is in occupation of the vacant plot of land measuring about 3 kathas. The ir such possession is stated to be from 1992. In Paragraph 3 of the writ petiti on, the petitioner has stated about purchase of the land by the respondents/ap plicants. According to the petitioner, such purchase of land is illegal. The respondents herein have instituted Title Suit No.188/2007 against th e writ petitioner, inter alia, praying for permanent and perpetual injunction re straining the writ petitioner from trespassing and/or entering into the land st ated to be under their possession as the lawful owners. Along with the suit, t he respondents/applicants have also filed Misc.(J) Case No.145/2007 and the lear ned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.2 by his order dated 10.8.2007, upon a prim a facie satisfaction that the land is in occupation of the respondents, passed t he ad-interim order of injunction directing to maintain status quo in respect of the possession of the land. It is on record that the present writ petitioner has entered appearance in the aforesaid title suit and has filed written statement and objection agains t the prayer for injunction. It is submitted that since the instant writ petit ion is pending before this Court, which was admittedly filed after filing of th e aforesaid suit and passing of the ad-interim injunction, the proceeding before the learned Civil Judge has not proceeded any further. It will be pertinent to mention here that the Schedule to the Plaint me ntions about the existence of an Assam Type-Ek-Chali house with wooden posts an d C.I. Sheet roof covered by Holding No.563 of Ward No.28 of the Gauhati Municip al Corporation. The said house, as per the Schedule is standing on the plot of land measuring 3 kathas being the total area of land of Schedule-’A’ and Schedu le-’B’ covered by Dag No.2000 and 1999 (both new)/771 (Old) covered by K.P. Patt a Nos. 1056 and 1055 respectively of Sahar Guwahati Part-II under Guwahati Mouza in the district of Kamrup (Metro). The boundary of the land has also been spec ified in the Schedule. The writ petition was filed at a time when the aforesaid suit was pendin g in the Court below and the injunction matter was to be decided. Be it stated here that the petitioner has not preferred any appeal against the order of ad-i nterim injunction and the matter is pending before the learned Civil Judge for f inal adjudication. This Court by its order dated 30.10.2007 passed an interim order provid ing that the police authorities would ensure that no earth-filling and/or const ruction takes place over the land in question. The interim order was passed on the basis of the submissions made that the land in question is protected under an interim order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 6.2.2007 in PIL No. 73/2005. The respondents by filing the aforesaid Miscellaneous Application have c ontended that it is the travesty of truth that the land is covered in the af oresaid PIL and that the petitioner had carried out any illegal and unlawful ac tivities over the plot of land. Upon a reference to the Schedule to the Plaint, the respondents/applicants have contended that the writ petitioner has suppress ed the material fact that the house in question was in existence at the time of filing of the suit, but in the writ petition, the petitioner has contended that it was only in the recent past, the respondents/applicants tried to construct t he house. Upon a reference to Annexure-7 series documents, more particularly, the letters dated 7.1.2008, it is the case of the respondents/applicants that the la nd in question is excluded from the notified area of Borsola and Sorusola Beel u nder Notification No.KRS 673/97/207 dated 30.8.2001 issued by the Deputy Commiss ioner, Kamrup, Guwahati. The said notification was issued by the Deputy Commiss ioner, Kamrup in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 4.1.2000 in Civi l Rule (PIL) No.23/1997. As per the said notification, the land indicated therei n is the reserved wet land for preservation. In the notification, the particula rs of the land and the boundaries thereof have also been indicated. Since it ha s been clarified by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup by his aforesaid letter date d 7.1.2008 that the land in question is excluded from the purview of the said no tification, it is the case of the respondents/applicants that the writ petitione r in the garb of the aforesaid PIL cannot make out a case so as to frustrate th e status quo order passed by the learned Civil Judge, referred to above. Although in the writ petition, the petitioner is trying to make out a ca se that only in the recent past, the respondents/applicants tried to build a hou se, but it is on record that the said house was already in existence, as would be evident from the Schedule to the Plaint as well as Annexure-VI order of asse ssment pertaining to 2005-06 issued on 23.8.2006. Thus, it will be seen that th e plea of the petitioner that the respondents only in the recent past tried to construct the house in question, is not correct. Projecting the same to be the c ause of action coupled with the endeavour on the part of the respondents/applic ants to carry out the earth filling over the plot of land and alleging police in action, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition on which the aforesaid ex parte interim order was passed. I have heard Mr. P.J. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. C.K. Sarma Baruah, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. N. Rajkhowa, lear ned counsel for the respondents/applicants. While Mr. Phukan, leaned counsel for the writ petiioner emphasized on the aforesaid PIL , Mr. Sarma Baruah, learned counsel for the respondents/applicants emphasized on the very maintainability of the writ petition, both on merit as well as on the ground of suppression of ma terial fact. The writ petition was filed at a time when the subject matter of dispute was pending before the learned Civil Judge. The suit involved private dispute b etween the writ petitioner and the respondents. While it is the case of the pet itioner that he is in continuous occupation of the land in question, it is the c ase of the respondents/applicants that they are the owners and possessors of the land by virtue of purchasing the same from the earlier landlord. The civil Cour t is in session of the matter and in fact, the writ petitioner has responded to the said proceeding by filing its objection to the injunction matter as well as the written statement to the main suit. As stated above, the ad-interim order of injunction was passØ d by the learned Civil Judge upon recording, prima faci e, satisfaction regarding possession of the land by the respondents/applicants. The injunction matter is yet to be decided for which the objection was called f or. The writ petitioner has filed its objection and in due course, the matter wi ll be decided by the learned Civil Court. When the aforesaid position relating to civil suit is prevalent, the pe titioner approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition primarily on the ground that there was illegal activities on the part of the respondents/app licants over the land. The objection relating to the injunction matter is yet to be concluded. It will be open for the writ petitioner to raise all such pleas a may be availab le to him, but instead, he has filed the writ petition and one of the prayers is to stay the entire proceedings in the aforesaid title suit. If the plea of the petitioner is to be accepted, then, in that case, the re is no question of raising the private dispute with the respondents/applicant s. The Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup has already certified that the land is exclu ded from the purview of the aforesaid notification issued pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid PIL. Mr. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land is covered by the aforesaid PIL and that there was no mention about the house in t he sale deed by which the respondents/applicants purchased the land from the ear lier landlord. He has also submitted that on a total reading of the classificat ion furnished by the Deputy Commissioner vide the Annexure-VII series letters da ted 7.1.2008, the land appears to be Government land. He further submits that f urther clarification of the matter is required to be obtained from the official respondents. All the aforesaid provisions will have to be understood in the context of pendency of the civil suit between the same parties. If the land is Govt. and wet land, it is not understood how the petitioner can claim the same. It will always be open for the petitioner to plead his case before the Court below. Th e private dispute between the parties cannot be adjudicated by the writ Court on the basis of the twisted form of the case of the petitioner. For all the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the interim order passed on 30.10.2007 needs to be vacated, which I accordingly do. Since the decision in the Misc. Application has necessarily led to the decision in the main writ petition, the writ petition is also disposed of by this order. It will be open for the petitioner to contest the suit raising all such object ions, as may be available to it.