ORDER : (MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.) Heard Mr. N. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioners; Ms. P.R. Mahanta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue & Disaster Management Department for the respondent no. 1; Mr. A. Borthakur, learned Standing Counsel, Public Works Department for the respondent nos. 2, 5 & 6; and Ms. S. Konwar, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 3 & 4. 2. The petitioners, 5 [five] in nos., have approached this Court stating inter- alia that they are owners and pattadars of different parcels of land situate at Village – Sonkuchi Town, Mouza – Ghilazari, Barpeta Revenue Circle, on the eastern side of the Barpeta Town – Howly Road. The petitioner no. 1 stated that he is the owner and pattadar of a plot of land measuring 1 Bigha 02 Kathas 14 Lessas, covered by Dag no. 49 & 88 and K.P. Patta no. 7 of Village – Sonkuchi Town, Mouza – Ghilazari, Barpeta Revenue Circle, situated on the eastern side of existing Barpeta Town-Howly Road. The petitioner nos. 2, 3 & 4 are the owners and pattadars of plots of land measuring 1 Katha 10 Lessas, covered by Dag no. 193 & K.P. Patta no. 15 of Village – Sonkuchi Town, Mouza – Ghilazari, Barpeta Revenue Circle, situated on the eastern side of existing Barpeta Town- Howly Road and the petitioner no. 5 is the owner and pattadar of a plot of land measuring 1 Katha 10 lessas, covered by Dag no. 57 and K.P. Patta 10 of Village - Sonkuchi Town, Mouza – Ghilazari, Barpeta Revenue Circle. 3. The petitioners have contended that the respondent authorities in the Public Works Department [PWD], Government of Assam, had started construction of a wide drain by the side of the Howly-Barpeta Town State Highway and in front of the parcels of land belonging to the petitioners. The petitioners have further contended that without acquiring any parts of the parcels of land belonging to the petitioners as per the provisions of law, the respondents in the Public Works Department have been constructing the drain over their patta lands demolishing structures standing over the petitioners’ parcels of land including houses. The petitioners have further stated that the petitioners had submitted representations before the respondent authorities in the Public Works Department with a direction to construct such drainage system by the side of the Howly-Barpeta Town PWD Road leaving their patta lands. The petitioners have further stated that the petitioners had submitted representations before the respondent authorities in the Public Works Department with a direction to construct such drainage system by the side of the Howly-Barpeta Town PWD Road leaving their patta lands. 4. By an Order dated 22.11.2021, this Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts projected by the petitioners, had directed the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta or any authorized person on his behalf, up-to the level of Additional Deputy Commissioner; the personnel of the Land Acquisition Branch of the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta; the Circle Officer, Barpeta Revenue Circle, Barpeta; and the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Rangia National Highway Division, Rangia or his authorized person up-to the level of Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Rangia National Highway Division, Rangia; with their men and materials to measure the relevant road and the drain then been constructed by the side of the Howly - Barpeta State High Way, which has gone by the front of the parcels of land belonging to the petitioners, on 30.11.2021 in presence of the petitioners or their authorized persons. The petitioners were directed to produce the relevant records in original regarding the settlement of their land over Dag nos. 57, 58, 61, 62, 64 of K.P. Patta no. 10 as well as Dag nos. 88, 49, 47, 46, and 208 of K.P. Patta no. 7 of Village - Soukuchi Town, Lat no. 8, Mouza - Ghilazari of Barpeta Revenue Circle, District-Barpeta including their respective parcels of land and its schedule, as settled with them by the land settlement authority, for necessary examination. 5. The Order dated 22.11.2021 further observed that after such joint survey / joint verification of the land as directed above, the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta as well as the Chief Engineer, PWD, Rangia shall submit their respective report before this Court. 6. After the Order dated 22.11.2021, an affidavit-in-opposition has been submitted by the respondent no. 3, that is, the Deputy Commissioner [presently, District Commissioner], Barpeta on 17.11.2022 enclosing the report of the Joint Survey/Verification carried out on 30.11.2021 as per the direction of this Court. As per the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 6. After the Order dated 22.11.2021, an affidavit-in-opposition has been submitted by the respondent no. 3, that is, the Deputy Commissioner [presently, District Commissioner], Barpeta on 17.11.2022 enclosing the report of the Joint Survey/Verification carried out on 30.11.2021 as per the direction of this Court. As per the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 3, measurements of the parcels of land belonging to the petitioners and the parcels of land where the drain has been constructed were taken during the Joint Survey/Verification and it is found that there is no construction in the periodic patta lands belonging to the petitioners. It is stated that the claim made by the petitioner is found to be baseless. It is further averred that there is no encroachment over any patta lands while constructing the drain and the drain has been constructed only over the government land. The afore-mentioned facts are also recorded in the Joint Survey/Verification Report, annexed to the said affidavit-in-opposition. 7. On perusal of the Report, it is noticed that the Report has been submitted after carrying out the Joint Survey/Verification of the parcels of land belonging to all the five petitioners and the government land over which the drain has been constructed. It is recorded in the Report that the Public Works Department has constructed the drain over the Government land over a stretch of 30 meters [100 feet] of the Howly-Barpeta Road and the Public Works Department has not made any construction over the land of the petitioners. As per the Report dated 09.12.2021, annexed as Annexure-1 to the affidavit-in-opposition, the Joint Survey/Verification was carried out on 30.11.2021 in presence of all the petitioners and during the Joint Survey/Verification, the boundary of the petitioners’ parcels of land and the adjacent government land, where the construction of the drain have been carried out, have been duly identified. 8. In view of the above fact situation obtaining in the case, it prima facie emerges that during the Joint Survey/Verification carried out on 30.11.2021, the boundaries of the petitioners’ parcels of land and the Government lands where the construction of the drain has been carried out, have been duly identified recording that the drain has only been constructed on Government land and not on any land belonging to the periodic patta lands of the petitioners. 9. 9. It is settled that in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law. In the process, the Court has to consider as to what facts are in dispute and what facts are not in dispute and such a state comes after the exchange of pleadings in the form of affidavits amongst the parties is complete. A writ petition is ordinarily decided on the basis of affidavits. When in a writ petition raises disputed questions of fact requiring appreciation of evidence, both oral and documentary, and for determination of such disputed questions of fact, leading of evidence by the parties would be necessary then it may not be convenient to decide such disputes in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution and then in such a case, the Court may decline to try a writ petition. The High Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution does not generally enter upon a determination of questions which demand leading of evidence to establish the right to enforce which the writ is claimed. 10. In view of the above discussion and the fact situation obtaining in the case in hand, it is observed that if the petitioners are still aggrieved by the findings recorded in the Joint Survey/Verification Report carried out in terms of the Order dated 22.11.2021 of this Court, the petitioners are not precluded to avail any other remedy as may be permitted under the law. 11. The writ petition is closed with the aforesaid observations. The interim order passed earlier stands recalled. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.