Disposed

Hemanta Kalita and 2 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC4 Jun 2019WP(C)/2126/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court directed the state revenue officials to resume and complete the demarcation of land for the petitioners within thirty days, ordering all parties to cooperate with the process after a previous attempt was stalled.

What did the court decide?

Direction to complete demarcation of land within thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Hemanta Kalita and 2 Ors. Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010068672018

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 2126/2018

¶5

1:HEMANTA KALITA AND 2 ORS. S/O LT. NABIN CHANRA KALITA R/O AZARA, KALITAPARA, P.O. AND P.S. AZARA, GUWAHATI - 781017, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM

¶6

2: SRI GAKUL KAKATI

¶7

S/O LT. ANANDI RAM KAKATI R/O AZARA KALITAPARA P.O. AND P.S. AZARA

¶8

GUWAHATI - 781017 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM

¶9

3: MD. FAZIR ALI S/O LT. DHANU SHEIKH R/O VILL- KAHIKUCHI UDITNAGAR P.O. AND P.S. AZARA GUWAHATI - 781017 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSA

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GUWAHATI - 781006, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM

¶12

2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM

¶15

3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER AZARA REVENUE CIRCLE AZARA DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM

¶16

4:SRI DRIGENDRA NARAYAN SINGH S/O LT. DHIRENDRA NARAYAN SINGH R/O VILL- KAHIKUCHI P.O. AND P.S. AZARA GUWAHATI - 781017 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSA

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. O P BHATI

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶19

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

¶20

ORDER

¶21

04.06.2019

¶22

Heard Mr. O. P. Bhati, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. M. D. Bora, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. P. N. Goswami, learned counsel for respondent No. 4.

¶23

By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners seek a direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for demarcation of their land.

¶24

Three petitioners have joined together and have instituted the present common proceeding.

¶25

Petitioners claim to be the absolute owners and pattadars of different plots of land situated at village Kahikuchi under Dakshin Rani Mouza in the district of Kamrup (M). Details

¶26

Page No.# 3/4

¶27

of land owned by the petitioners as furnished in the writ petition are as under:-

¶28

“ Petitioner No. 1 is the absolute owner of a plot of land measuring 3 Kathas 10 Lechas, covered by Dag No. 311 of KP Patta No. 29 of Village-Kahikuchi, under Mouza-Dakshin Rani, in the District of Kamrup (M), Assam. Petitioner No. 2 is the absolute owner of a plot of land measuring 2 Bigha 15 Lechas, covered by K. P. Patta No. 162, Dag No. 306 of villageKahikuchi, under Mouza-Dakshin Rani and the petitioner No. 3 is the absolute owner of a plot of land measuring 2 Katha covered by K. P. Patta No. 162, Dag No. 306 of village-Kahikuchi, under Mouza-Dakshin Rani in the District of Kamrup (M), Assam.”

¶29

Respondent No. 3 i.e., Circle Officer, Ajara Revenue Circle issue notice on demarcation dated 14.03.2018.

¶30

In the midst of demarcation on 23.03.2018, the revenue officials left the place and stopped demarcation. Petitioners have alleged that such stoppage was because of a call received from respondent No. 2. It is stated that petitioners thereafter moved the revenue authorities for completion of demarcation but no positive steps have been taken.

¶31

Hence the writ petition.

¶32

Notice in this case was issued on 09.04.2018.

¶33

Though respondents have not filed affidavit, learned Govt. Advocate submits that as per report of Circle Officer dated 23.03.2018 revenue staff started measurement of land in Demarcation Case No. 32/2017-18 but due to urgent office work, they had to return back without completing the process. It is also stated that the existing road measuring 400 feet X 10 feet seen over Dag No. 311 and patta No. 29 is not marked in trace map.

¶34

Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 at the outset has clarified that the allegation made by the petitioners against respondent No. 4 in paragraph 8 of the writ petition is not correct as he has not in any way obstructed demarcation of the land of petitioners vis-àvis land of respondent No. 4. The whole problem has cropped up due to construction of boundary wall by respondent No. 4. Till this point of time respondent No. 4 had allowed the petitioners to have egress and ingress to their respective residences through a part of his land. After construction of boundary, petitioners may have to take a detour.

¶35

Be that as it may, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and on due consideration, Court is of the view that demarcation of the land-in-question by the revenue officials which remained inconclusive on 23.03.2018 should now be resumed and completed expeditiously.

¶36

Page No.# 4/4

¶37

Both petitioners and respondent No. 4 should co-operate with the revenue officials regarding demarcation of the land.

¶38

Let the demarcation exercise be completed within a period of 30 (thirty) days from date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶39

Writ petition is disposed of.

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

Comparing Assistant

Hemanta Kalita and 2 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemanta Kalita and 2 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ikhtiar Uddin Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Dr. Thir Narayan Singh and 2 Ors. Vs Jairaj Bikram Singh and 3 Ors.

M/S. Shree Ganesh Trading Company Vs Shashi Kanth Jain and 3 Ors.

Assam State Agricultural Marketing Board Vs Md. Kasim and 66 Ors.

Dimbeswar Das Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Md. Kasim and 66 Ors. Vs Assam State Agriculture Marketing Board and 3 Ors.