The High Court, Gauhati Bench, examined an application alleging non-compliance with a previous order directing land demarcation. The court held that since a statutory appeal lay under the Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012, the fresh application was not entertained.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010049322023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/119/2023
BIDUT BAKSHI @ BIDYUT BAKSHI
S/O- LATE NARENDRA CHANDRA BAKSHI, VILL. NO. 2 CHATIANGURI, P.O. CHATIANGURI, P.S. BIJNI, DIST. CHIRANG, BTAD, ASSAM, PIN- 783390.
VERSUS
MARIA TANIM
THE CIRCLE OFFICER, BIJNI REVENUE CIRCLE, BIJNI, P.O. AND P.S. BIJNI, DIST. CHIRANG, BTAD, ASSAM, PIN- 783390.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K R PATGIRI
Advocate for the Respondent :
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
ORDER
Date : 10-03-2023
Heard Mr. K.R. Patgiri, learned counsel for the applicant.
Page No.# 2/3
demarcation in respect of a plot of land measuring 3 Bighas, 4 Kathas and 12 Lessas [03B-04K-12L], covered by Dag no. 258 & Periodic Patta no. 89, located at Village no. 2 Chatianguri [Kadamtola] under Bijni Revenue Circle, District – Chirang [‘the subject-plot’, for short] to its logical end. When the writ petition was taken up for consideration on 14.09.2022, the Court noticing that the demarcation is a notified public service under the Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012, directed the Circle Officer, Bijni Revenue Circle to entertain the application of the petitioner dated 14.09.2021 for demarcation in respect of the subject-plot and to pass a reasoned order thereon by adhering to the procedure laid down in the Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012. Observing so, the writ petition was disposed of with the further observation that for the purpose of demarcation, notices, if necessary, may also be issued to any other affected persons who, according to the Circle Officer, Bijni Revenue Circle, would require hearing under the law. Subsequent to the order dated 14.09.2022 [supra], the petitioner brought the order dated 14.09.2022 [supra] to the notice of the Circle Officer, Bijni Revenue Circle by a representation dated 29.09.2022. On receipt of the order dated 14.09.2022 and the representation dated 29.09.2022 of the petitioner, the Circle Officer, Bijni Revenue Circle initiated a process of demarcation by issuing notices to the concerned stakeholders on 09.11.2022 calling for their appearance on 16.11.2022. Subsequently, notices, dated 28.11.2022 & dated 01.12.2022, were issued to the stakeholders by the Circle Officer, Bijni Revenue Circle calling for their appearance on 01.12.2022 and 03.12.2022 respectively. As the process of demarcation has not been brought to its logical conclusion by the Circle Officer, Bijni Revenue Circle till date, the petitioner has preferred the instant application alleging non-compliance of the order dated 14.09.2022 passed in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 2103/2022.
Page No.# 3/3
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an application for review of inaction on land demarcation orders can be entertained when a statutory remedy of appeal exists under the Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
BIDUT BAKSHI @ BIDYUT BAKSHI
MARIA TANIM
THE CIRCLE OFFICER, BIJNI REVENUE CIRCLE
MANISH CHOUDHURY
As recorded by the court registry
Proceedings for wilful disobedience of a court order under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
