[1] Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

[2] This present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

               “ i. ISSUE RULE, calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why all records relating to the case of the Petitioners should not be transmitted to this Hon'ble Court;

               ii. ISSUE RULE, calling upon the Respondents and each one of them, to show cause as to why the action of the State Respondents should not be declared as illegal for occupation of private land;

               iii. ISSUE RULE, calling upon the Respondents and each one of them, to show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus and/or in the nature thereof should not be passed for immediate acquisition process under the Land Acquisition process or pay adequate compensation at the prevailing market rate;

               iv. ISSUE RULE, calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus and/or in the nature thereof should not be passed for demolishing the building which was illegally and forcefully set up over the jote land of the petitioners and directing for adequate compensation with interest @ 18% P.A w.e.f. 1985 till payment and / or to return back the land to the original owner i.e. the Petitioners in its original form in case of non-acquisition process with cost of damage and compensation;

               V. ISSUE RULE, calling upon the Respondents and each one of them, to show cause as to why cost upon the Respondents should not be passed for unlawful action and for unnecessary dragging the petitioner into the litigation”.

               vi. After hearing, be pleased to make the Rules absolute interms of Prayer i, ii, iii, iv & v above..

[3] It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners are the land owners and their land had been illegally occupied by the respondent authorities. Thereafter, with the help of some influential people respondent authorities constructed a building in the name of Rajarbandh Junior Basic School over the jote land of the petitioners long ago. According to the petitioners, the land was originally owned and possessed by the father of the petitioners. From 1985, till now the respondents have not done anything towards acquisition of the land. Hence, this writ petition.

[4] Mr. T. K Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits before this Court that the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 constructed a school building on the jote land of the petitioners without acquiring the land in a proper manner. He also submits that the petitioners herein have also submitted several representations but, all the efforts remain fruitless. He further contends before this Court that at the time of constructions of the building, the father of the petitioners was a poor cultivator and to his utter ignorance, the respondents without fulfilling the assurances constructed the said building. He, therefore, prays before this Court to allow the instant petition.

[5] Heard and perused the evidence on record.

[6] After perusal of the record, it is seen that the building was constructed long ago but the petitioners herein did not approach this Court within a due period indicated under the statute and due to this, the same is hit by laches as there is an inordinate delay. Even in the pleadings, the learned counsel of the petitioners has not made out the case to point out the legal infirmities committed by the respondents.

[7] Upon hearing the submission of the learned counsel of the petitioners, this Court feels that during the construction of building, the father of the petitioners was a poor cultivator and due to his ignorance, the respondent authorities constructed the building without fulfilling the assurances. According to this Court, all these facts falls under disputed questions of fact and the same cannot be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as it is not maintainable under this statute.

[8] For the discussion made above, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief as prayed for by the parties and thus, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

[9] With the above observation, this present writ petition stands disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous application(s), pending if any, shall stand closed.