JUDGEMENT : Heard Mr. A. Narzary, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.S. Deka, the learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State respondents. 2. The petitioner is a business establishment with their office at Makum Road, Tinsukia. They purchased 21 Bigha 3 Katha 18 Lecha of land at village Maidam Gaon in Beltola Mouza, Guwahati through a registered sale deed dated 1.1.1986 from the land owner, Dipika Bhattacharjee. But the purchaser could not secure mutation over the land, because of the ongoing re-settlement operation. 3. While situated thus, in the Case No.KDC—75/2000, the Addl. DC, Kamrup passed an order on 28.3.2000, creating tenancy khatian under the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tenancy Act’), in the name of two khatiandars i.e. Lakhi Boro and Bulu Teron. Thus the Khatian Nos.145, 148, 147 & 149 in favour of the khatiandars was created. Thereafter ownership and intermediary rights in favour of the tenants under Section 23 of the Tenancy Act was also declared, in place of the land owner/seller, Smti. Dipika Bhattacharjee. 4. The aggrieved purchasers then challenged the ownership declaration made under Section 23 of the Tenancy Act, by filing Appeals under Section 67 of the Tenancy Act and these Appeals were registered as Revenue Appeal Nos.83 RA(K), 84 RA(K), 85 RA(K), 86 RA(K) & 87 RA(K)/2004 respectively, in the Assam Board of Revenue (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Revenue Board’). In the Appeal proceedings, the two khatiandars were arrayed as respondents. 5. The Revenue Board considered the Appeals analogously and after examining the materials on record observed that tenancy rights and ownership rights under the Tenancy Act in favour of the private respondents, were created illegally and in violation of the statutory provisions. On the basis of such finding, the tenancy created in favour of the private respondents were quashed and direction was issued to the Settlement Officer, Kamrup to allow mutation in favour of the appellant (purchaser), through the judgment dated 3.4.2007 (Annexure-B). 6. In pursuant to the direction given by the Revenue Board on 3.4.2007, mutation was granted in favour of M/s. Sanwaria Peoperties, in place of the seller Smti. Dipika Bhattacharjee, on the strength of the registered sale deed dated 1.1.1986 and the jamabandi (Annexure-C series) reflects the correction of the Revenue Records. 7. 6. In pursuant to the direction given by the Revenue Board on 3.4.2007, mutation was granted in favour of M/s. Sanwaria Peoperties, in place of the seller Smti. Dipika Bhattacharjee, on the strength of the registered sale deed dated 1.1.1986 and the jamabandi (Annexure-C series) reflects the correction of the Revenue Records. 7. In the meantime, the land purchased by the petitioner came to be occupied by a large group of people and 29 of them led by one Bankim Mahanta, filed the T.S. No.305/2007, where the petitioner was arrayed as the defendant in the suit. But the plaintiffs applied for withdrawal of the suit and accordingly the learned Civil Judge No.1, Kamrup, Guwahati on 3.12.2009 (Annexure-D), ordered for dismissal of the suit, with opportunity to the plaintiffs to file a fresh suit. 8. But since the purchased land continued to remain under encroachment, the writ petitioner filed representations to various authorities to clear the land from encroachers. As no action was taken, the purchaser has filed the present Writ Petition for a direction to the authorities, to clear the land from the clutches of the encroachers. 9. Mr. A. Narzary, the learned counsel submits that the Govt. authorities are obliged to protect the land owners from the land grabbing attempts of anti-social elements and the learned lawyer refers to the Govt. Notification dated 3.9.2005, which requires the Revenue Authorities to firmly deal with the anti-social elements. The Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2010 Act’), prohibits forcible occupation of private land and penal prescription is made under Section 5 for those committing the offence of land grabbing. Special Tribunals are constituted under the 1971 Act, to deal with the land grabbing cases and functioning and procedure of such Tribunals are also prescribed under the 2010 Act. 10. Representing the State Authorities, Mr. P.S. Deka, the learned Govt. Advocate submits that although the petitioner succeeded with their Appeals before the Revenue Board in quashing the creation of Khatian rights under the Tenancy Act in favour of the private respondents, they however had failed to take effective steps, to protect and clear their land from encroachment. Referring to the T.S. No.305/2007 which was withdrawn by the plaintiffs on 3.12.2009, the Govt. Referring to the T.S. No.305/2007 which was withdrawn by the plaintiffs on 3.12.2009, the Govt. Advocate submits from that, apart from the two khatiandars Lakhi Boro and Bulu Teron, 28 persons who were the plaintiffs in the T.S. No.305/2007 were also asserting their rights, over the purchased land of the petitioner. But the writ petitioner after securing mutation over the land, never took any effective steps for clearing their land from the occupiers. The Govt. Advocate suggests that a Civil Suit could have been filed by the petitioner against the encroachers. He points out that from the T.S. No.305/2007 itself, the identification of the occupiers was possible and the petitioner could have proceeded against them. 11. The “Special Tribunal” under Section 2(h) of the 2010 Act is a defined expression and land grabbing cases are to be dealt by such Special Tribunals. In fact transfer of cases pending in any Court to the Special Tribunal is envisaged, under Section 12 of the 2010 Act. 12. In the Writ Petition under consideration, the petitioners have failed to name any of the encroachers and none of them are arrayed as respondents in this case. But it is well known that the Beltola area of the city is now thickly populated with hardly any vacant land and it is obvious that the purchaser do not have possession over the land, purchased by them in 1986. Whether the occupiers are tenants under the seller Dipika Bhattacharjee or are fresh encroachers, will have to be adjudicated on the basis of evidence and the Writ Court is not the best forum to deal with such cases of encroachment/dis-possession. In so far as the direction sought for activating the authorities, none of the encroachers are named by the petitioner and therefore this Court is of the considered opinion that direction as prayed for, can’t be issued against unnamed occupiers. 13. But at the same time, the petitioner as a bonafide purchaser can’t be left remediless and accordingly even while refusing to entertain the writ petition, liberty is granted to the petitioner to take recourse to the Civil Courts or to the Special Tribunal, under the 2010 Act, as may be found convenient, for redressal of their grievances. It is ordered accordingly. 14. With the above order, the case stands disposed of in the manner indicated. No costs.