JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. 1. Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Borua, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. B. Sharma, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. I have also heard Ms. U. Das, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate who appears on behalf of the respondent No.4. 2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court challenging the judgment and order dated 01.06.2019 passed in Misc. Appeal No.4/2016 by the learned Court of the District Judge, Nagaon, Assam whereby the appeal so filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act of 1971’) was dismissed. 3. The materials on record show that the Estate Officer of the N.F. Railway i.e. the respondent No.2 had issued two notices under Section 4 of the Act of 1971 asking the petitioner to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be evicted from the land described in the schedules of the notices both dated 20.09.2016. As the petitioner did not submit any reply, on 08.11.2016, two orders were passed under Section 5 (1) of the Act of 1971 whereby the petitioner was directed to vacate the said public premises within 30 (thirty) days from the date of publication of the order and it was further observed that on failure to comply with the said order, appropriate action would be taken. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved preferred an appeal against both the orders passed on 08.11.2016 by the respondent No.2. The said appeal was registered and numbered as Misc. Appeal No.4/2016. From a perusal of the contents of the said appeal, it appears that the predecessor of the petitioner Late Sarupai Bhuyan has been possessing a plot of land covered by Nagaon Municipality Holding No.373 (Ka) of Ward No.17 of Nagaon Municipality Board. It was also mentioned that earlier steps were taken in the year 1963 under Section 122 of the Railways Act, 1989 and the learned CJM, Nagaon then passed an order on 22.11.1963 by holding that the railway authority failed to prove that Sarupai Bhuyan the father of the petitioner had illegally encroached the railway land. It was also mentioned that earlier steps were taken in the year 1963 under Section 122 of the Railways Act, 1989 and the learned CJM, Nagaon then passed an order on 22.11.1963 by holding that the railway authority failed to prove that Sarupai Bhuyan the father of the petitioner had illegally encroached the railway land. It was further mentioned that the predecessor of the petitioner constructed over the said land a Namghar which is a public Namghar under the name and style of Jay Guru Sankar Kala Krishty Vikash Kendra. 5. The ground which has been taken is that the petitioner was not afforded any adequate opportunity to present his case in the proceedings initiated by the respondent No.2. In addition to that, a ground was taken that the land in question is not a railway land but a Government land. It is seen that the learned District Judge, Nagaon dismissed the said appeal vide the judgment dated 01.06.2019 holding inter alia that there was no illegality committed by the Estate Officer in passing the orders of eviction. It was also mentioned that the orders of eviction were in respect to Railway Plot No.86 and Railway Plot Nos. 87 and 88 and the petitioner herein could not produce any satisfactory reply and convincing documents. 6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment dated 01.06.2019 passed in Misc. Appeal No.4/2016, the present writ petition was filed on 27.08.2019 and this Court vide an order dated 02.09.2019 issued notice and stayed the impugned order dated 01.06.2019 until further orders. The said interim order thereupon has been extended from time to time. However, after 28.05.2025, there has been no extension of the said interim order. 7. It is seen from the records that the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have filed an affidavit-in-opposition stating inter alia that the land in question is a railway land and in that regard, have also placed before this Court the certified Land Plan No. L/10/7/64 which was signed jointly by the Railway Authority and the State Civil Authority enclosed as Annexure-A to the affidavit-in-opposition. 8. In the backdrop of the above, this Court has heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, the learned Senior counsel who submitted that the learned District Judge, Nagaon ought to have been decided the point as to whether the land in question was a Government land or railway land. 8. In the backdrop of the above, this Court has heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, the learned Senior counsel who submitted that the learned District Judge, Nagaon ought to have been decided the point as to whether the land in question was a Government land or railway land. In that regard, he had referred to a Land Revenue Receipt dated 19.03.1986. 9. This Court upon perusal of the said Land Revenue Receipt enclosed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition and more particularly to the certified copy of the same which is in the vernacular do not find that there is any mention of any dag number in respect to the said land in question. This Court enquired with the learned Senior counsel as to what is the dag number of the land in question inasmuch as if the land has a dag number, some credence can be given to the contention so placed by the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Nothing could be placed in that regard. In addition to that, this Court has duly perused the impugned judgment and order dated 01.06.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, Nagaon and do not find any error in exercise of jurisdiction. 10. Consequently, this Court does not find any merit in the instant writ petition for which the instant writ petition stands dismissed. However, in the facts of the instant case, this Court is not inclined to impose any costs. 11. Interim order passed on 02.09.2019 stands vacated.