Ujjal Bhuyan, J.— Heard Mr. B. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Ajitsaria, learned Standing Counsel, Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority (GMDA) for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. S. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC) for the Respondent No.5. Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appears for the Respondent No.3 and 4. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the communication dated 23.3.2010 of the GMDA declining to furnish the documents sought for by the petitioner in respect of the building construction by the Respondent Nos.3 and 4, which he contends to be on his land. Petitioner seeks a direction for furnishing of the documents as per his application dated 16.2.2010 submitted under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Prayer is also made to restrain the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 from carrying out further construction of the building over the land described in the sale deed dated 6.7.2005 and also for demolition of the same. 2. Case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of a plot of land measuring 2K-10L covered by Dag No. 300(O), Patta No.277 (O) of village Betkuchi under mouza Beltola, Guwahati City, purchased as per the sale deed No.5599 dated 9.6.1971. Petitioner by executing a Power of Attorney on 23.3.2005 had appointed his younger brother as Attorney to look after the said land. On 28.12.2009, the petitioner's constituted Attorney found construction of a building over the said land. On enquiry, the petitioner could come to know that his aforesaid land had been "sold" by fraud and impersonation through sale deeds dated 7.4.2005 and 6.7.2005. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. 3. This Court by order dated 24.8.2011, while admitting the writ petition, directed maintenance of status quo as regards the construction in question. In the course of the proceeding, the documents sought for by the petitioner to support his case have been furnished to him. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no further grievance as regards the furnishing of the documents sought for by him. 4. Further, as the building permission was granted to the Respondent Nos. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no further grievance as regards the furnishing of the documents sought for by him. 4. Further, as the building permission was granted to the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 by the GMC and not by the GMDA, the petitioner also submitted that he has no grievance against the GMDA, which is reflected in the order of this Court dated 13.3.2012. 5.The GMC in its affidavit dated 29.5.2012 has stated that pursuant to the joint application dated 24.12.2011 by the Respondent Nos.3 and 4, no objection certificate dated 10.6.2011 was issued to the said respondents for construction of ground plus four floors on the land mentioned in the said no objection certificate. It is further stated that while granting the no objection certificate, the GMC authorities scrutinized various documents as mentioned in paragraph 4 of the said affidavit. 6. Respondent Nos.3 and 4, though have not filed counter affidavit, but they have filed an application for vacation/alteration/modification of the status quo order dated 24.8.2011, which has been registered as Misc. Case No.3134/2011. In the Misc. application, the said respondents have contended that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the land over which they are presently constructing their building on receipt of due permission from the GMC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is being divested of his property by means of fraud and as the documents which were necessary to establish his case were not furnished to him, while the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 continued with the construction of the building, he was compelled to file the writ petition for the protection of his rights and interest. Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4, on the other hand, submits that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has raised highly disputed questions of fact, which would require adjudication on adducing of evidence. He also submits that it is the sale deed dated 6.7.2005 in favour of the Respondent No. 3, which has been disputed by the petitioner. 7. He also submits that it is the sale deed dated 6.7.2005 in favour of the Respondent No. 3, which has been disputed by the petitioner. 7. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, this Court is of the view that the two surviving reliefs sought for by the petitioner, namely, restraining the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 from going ahead with the construction of their building and for demolition of the same would require examination of the rival claims of title, which should best be left to the competent civil Court to decide. That being the position, the petitioner may approach the civil Court of competent jurisdiction for redressal of his grievances, if so advised. 8. As this Court had passed an order of status quo on 24.8.2011, it would in the interest of justice, if the said order of status quo is extended for a further period of 30 days. Ordered accordingly. It is, however, made clear that this extension of the status quo order is only to enable the petitioner to move the civil Court, if he so chooses. The status quo order has not been extended on consideration of the merit of the case and if a civil suit is filed by the petitioner, the civil Court shall decide the same on its own merit, uninfluenced by the extension of the status quo order. 9. This disposes of the writ petition. _____________