Dismissed

Ambu Choudhury and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC17 Sept 2024WP(C)/7215/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court disposed of this writ petition challenging inaction by the District Administration and Revenue Department regarding land mutation cancellation. The Court held the Circle Officer lacked power to review the Assistant Settlement Officer's mutation order and thus issued no writ of mandamus, directing the petitioner instead to file a revision under Section 151.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Petitioner at liberty to file revision under Section 151 of Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, 1886 against the 1991 order.

Ambu Choudhury and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors. — Land Acquisition | Gauhati HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010279262023

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/7215/2023

¶5

AMBU CHOUDHURY AND ANR SON OF LATE JAGADINDRA CHOUDHURY, R/O- LAKHIPUR TOWN, P.O. AND P.S.- LAKHIPUR, DIST.- GOALPARA, ASSAM, PIN- 783129.

¶6

2: RABINDRA CHOUDHURY SON OF LATE JAGADINDRA CHOUDHURY

¶7

R/O- LAKHIPUR TOWN P.O. AND P.S.- LAKHIPUR

¶8

DIST.- GOALPARA ASSAM PIN- 783129

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.

¶11

2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GOALPARA P.O. AND DISTRICT- GOALPARA ASSAM

¶12

PIN- 783101.

¶13

3:THE SETTLEMENT OFFICER

¶14

Page No.# 2/5

¶15

GOALPARA P.O. AND DISTRICT- GOALPARA ASSAM

¶16

PIN- 783101.

¶17

4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER MATIA REVENUE CIRCLE P.O.- MATIA DISTRICT- GOALPARA

¶18

ASSAM PIN- 783125

¶19

Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. MM Zaman

¶20

Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. N Goswami

¶21

Junior Government Advocate, Assam

¶22

B E F O R E

¶23

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

¶24

ORDER

¶25

18.09.2024

¶26

Heard Mr. MM Zaman, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. N Goswami, the learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam appears on behalf of the District Administration and Mr. A Bhattacharya, the learned Standing Counsel, appears on behalf of the Revenue Department, Govt. of Assam.

¶27

This Court vide the order dated 10.09.2024 sought for certain instruction(s) from the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 as to what steps have been taken by the

¶28

Page No.# 3/5

¶29

respondent No.4 in respect to the disposal of Misc.Case No.127/2022. Paragraphs 2 to 5 of the said order being relevant are reproduced hereinunder:

¶30

“2. The Petitioners herein have approached this Court being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Respondent No.4 in disposing of the representation so submitted for cancellation of the mutation in favour of one Shri Bibhu Bhusan Choudhury which was filed in the year 2018.

¶31

From the materials on record, it transpires that the Petitioners herein claim that Late Jagadindra Choudhury and Jyotindra Choudhury were the original owners and possessor of two plots of land. One of such plot is a plot admeasuring 3 Bighas 2 Kathas 16 Lechas covered by Dag No.516 of Patta No.152 (new)/69 (old) and the other plot admeasures 7 Bighas 2 Kathas 14 Lechas covered by Dag No.517 of Patta No.152 (new)/117(old) at village Lalabari under Matia Revenue Circle in the District of Goalpara, Assam.

¶32

It is the case of the Petitioners that neither their predecessor-ininterest nor they have sold their land. However, in the year 2015, they could come to learn that the two plots of land have been mutated in favour of one Shri Bibhu Bhusan Choudhury. Under such circumstances, the Petitioners submitted an application on 29.11.2018 before the Settlement Officer, Goalpara whereby the Petitioners inter alia prayed for cancellation of the illegal mutation of their land in favour of Shri Bibhu Bhusan Choudhury and the name of the petitioners be restored. Upon such application being filed, the Settlement Officer forwarded the application to the Circle Officer of Matia Revenue Circle and on the basis thereof, a Misc. Case being Misc. Case No.127/2022 was registered and notice was issued on 29.10.2022 directing the parties to appear before the said authorities.

¶33

Page No.# 4/5

¶34

However, there was no steps taken thereupon by the Circle Officer, Matia Revenue Circle and it is under such circumstances, the Petitioners have approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.

¶35

This Court fixes this matter again on 18.09.2024 on which date, Ms. M. Barman, the learned Government Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 shall apprise this Court as to what steps have been taken by the Respondent No.4 in respect to the disposal of the Misc. Case No.127/2022.”

¶36

This Court had duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as the respondents.

¶37

It is seen that the petitioners herein had filed an application challenging an order of mutation granted by the Assistant Settlement Officer passed on 24.09.1991 on 29.11.2018. It is seen that pursuant thereto, the Settlement Officer endorsed the file to the Circle Officer and on the basis of which, the Circle Officer had registered Misc.Case No.127/2022.

¶38

Mr. N Goswami, the learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 submitted that taking into account that the order has been passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, the Circle Officer would not have the power to review and as such, no order has been passed in Misc. Case No.127/2022.

¶39

This Court is of the opinion that the Circle Officer, Matia Revenue Circle had committed no illegality in not passing any order in Misc.Case No.127/2022, taking into account that the Circle Officer does not have the power to set aside an order of mutation passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer. This is more so, taking into account the provisions of Section 147 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, 1886 which stipulates that an appeal lies to the

¶40

Page No.# 5/5

¶41

Settlement Officer against an order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer.

¶42

Accordingly, this Court, therefore, is not inclined to issue any writ in the nature of mandamus as sought for.

¶43

Be that as it may, the petitioner would always be at liberty to file a revision application under Section 151 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, 1886 challenging the order dated 24.09.1991 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer.

¶44

In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

Comparing Assistant

Ambu Choudhury and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ambu Choudhury and Anr. 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

Bulon Gogoi and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Bipul Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Safiqul Islam Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gol Hussain and 56 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Romen Kalita Vs the State Bank of India and 3 Ors.

Parikshit Chandra Das Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.