MC 3160/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I A ANSARI By making this Misc. application, the applicant, who is respondent No. 5 in Writ Petition No. 4536/2008, has sought to get set aside and/or modified the interim direction, which has been passed, on 10.11.2008, in WP(C) No. 4536/2008 , whereby the impugned order, dated 20.09.2008, issued in favour of the applican t, stands stayed. Heard accordingly Mr. M. U. Mondal, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the applicant, and Mr. A. M. Mazumdar, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1-opposite party. Also heard Ms. H. M. Phukan, lea rned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 4. The subject-matter of controversy, in this Misc. case, is the settlement , granted by the Dhubri Zilla Parishad, in favour of the present applicant, in r espect of Goalerchar Babur Hat Bazar, who is respondent No. 5 in the said writ p etition. While it is the case of the writ petitioner-opposite party that the sa id market is situated on private land, the case of the respondents is that the s aid market is located on government land. The petitioner does not, however, cla im that he is owner of the said land. In fact, a writ petition was earlier file d, in this Court, by one Azimul Haque and some others raising claim of ownership over the land, in question, as their land and contending that the Goalerchar Ba bur Hat Bazar is being run on the private land of these petitioners. This writ petition gave rise to WP(C) No. 2988/2008, which was disposed of, on 22.08.2008, with the finding that since the petitioner’s case was that the market, in quest ion, was located on private land, and the respondents contended that the market is situated on government land, such disputed question of fact cannot be decided in a writ proceeding. The case, at hand, also raises the same question as to w hether the said market is located on a private land or on government land. When the writ petition, filed by persons, who had claimed the land, in question, to be their own land, has not been entertained by this Court, there is no reason fo r this Court to pass any interim order restraining respondent No. 5 (who is the applicant in this Misc. Application) from enjoying the benefit of the settlement made in his favour. In view of the above and in the interest of justice, the interim directi on, passed, on 10.11.2008, in WP(C) No. 4536/2008, is hereby vacated. This Misc. Case shall accordingly stand disposed of. No order as to cost.