Disposed

Nilendu Roy v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Gauhati HC5 Mar 2025WP(C)/1163/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought return of donated land alleging school non-existence and misuse. Court held these are factual questions requiring inquiry by Education and District authorities. Petition disposed pending inquiry report.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to conduct inquiry into school existence and land status within two months with hearing to school representatives.

Nilendu Roy Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors. — Property and Title | Gauhati HC (2025)

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010023922021

2025:GAU-AS:2377

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/1163/2021

¶6

NILENDU ROY

¶7

S/O LATE LAKSHMI KANTA ROY, COLLEGE ROAD, WARD NO. 13, HAILAKANDI TOWN, P.O., P.S. AND DIST. HAILAKANDI, ASSAM, PIN 788151

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI, ASSAM.

¶10

2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION

¶11

GOVT. OF ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI 19

¶12

3:THE DIST. ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER

¶13

HAILAKANDI OLD HOSPITAL ROAD HAILAKANDI.

¶14

4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

¶15

HAILAKANDI P.O. P.S. AND DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM.

¶16

5:THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

¶17

Page No.# 2/5

¶18

HAILAKANDI P.O. P.S. AND DIST HAILAKANDI ASSAM.

¶19

6:THE CIRCLE OFFICER

¶20

HAILAKANDI P.O. P.S. AND DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM. 7:SMT. MONIMITA SHARMA W/O AROBINDO SHARMA HOSPITAL ROAD WARD NO. 4 P.O. P.S. AND DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM.

¶21

8:ARUN CHOUDHURY

¶22

S/O NOT KNOWN HAILAKANDI WARD NO. 13 P.O. P.S. AND DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM

¶23

Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. S ROY, MS. I DAS

¶24

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. R A CHOUDHURY (R-7 & 8),MR. R A MAZUMDER (R-7 & 8),SC, ELEM. EDU

¶25

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶26

ORDER

¶27

06.03.2025

¶28

Heard Ms. S. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Deuri, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4, 5 & 6. Also heard Ms. N. Phukan,

¶29

Page No.# 3/5

¶30

learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and Mr. R. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 7 & 8.

¶31

The petitioner’s case is that his father had gifted a certain plot of land to two different schools, A.L. Choudhury L.P. & M.E. School and Sishu Sadan English Medium High School, the schedule of which, is as follows:-

¶32

“SCHEDULE OF LAND

¶33

Phorgona: Hailakandi, Mouza: Gangpar-Dhumpar part-I, 2nd R.S.Patta No.77, Dag No.20 total land measuring. 05(five) Khatta, which is bounded by -

¶34

North: Flood Control Office (Water Resources Ex. Engineer Office).

¶35

South: Land of doner.

¶36

Last :- Municipal Road drain,

¶37

West :- Land doner.”

¶38

The petitioner’s counsel submits that the 2 plots of land had been gifted to two different schools, A.L. Choudhury L.P. & M.E. School and Sishu Sadan English Medium High School, which were located in Hailakandi district. As the Headmistress and President of the A.L. Choudhury L.P. & M.E. School had misused the donated land and usurped some portion of the land donated to Sishu Sadan English Medium High School, the petitioner had submitted a complaint to the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi on 16.12.2019. However, no action has been taken upon the said complaint by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner till date.

¶39

The petitioner’s counsel submits that there was a stipulation in the gift deed that if the Government did not provincialize the school to which the land

¶40

Page No.# 4/5

¶41

had been donated, the said land was to revert back to the petitioner’s father or to his successor. Further, the A.L. Choudhury L.P. & M.E. School is not in existence and it’s existence is only on paper. Thus, the land should be reverted back to the petitioner, as his father has died.

¶42

Mr. B. Deuri, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4, 5 & 6 submits that the office of the District Commissioner, Hailakandi can take a decision on the complaint made by the petitioner, provided the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 also give their inputs with regard to whether the schools to which the lands had been donated are in existence.

¶43

Ms. N. Phukan, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 to 6 submits that all help will be extended to the respondent No.4 in verifying whether the schools are in existence and have been provincialised and whether there has been misuse of the land.

¶44

Mr. R. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 7 & 8 submits that the schools to which the lands had been donated are in existence.

¶45

I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶46

On considering the issue raised in this writ petition, it is quite apparent that the same relates to questions of fact and as such, this Court is of the view that the issues raised by the petitioner would have to be gone into by the respondent Nos. 1 to 6. Accordingly, the respondent Nos. 2 & 4, i.e., the Director of Elementary Education and District Commissioner, Hailakandi, shall cause an inquiry as to whether the A.L. Choudhury L.P. & M.E. School is in existence and as to whether the above said 2 schools have been provincialized.

¶47

Page No.# 5/5

¶48

In the event, it is found that the donated land had been usurped by any person for private use, necessary action should be taken by the State respondents.

¶49

The State respondent No.4 is accordingly directed to cause an inquiry and conclude the same within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondent Nos. 7 & 8, who are the Headmistress and President of the A.L. Choudhury L.P. & M.E. School. A copy of the report should be furnished to the petitioner.

¶50

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶51

JUDGE

¶52

Comparing Assistant

Nilendu Roy v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nilendu Roy v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramisha Begum and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

MD Mohibul Hoque Choudhury Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Gobin Sarmah Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Kanika Bharali Medhi Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Vikrant Singh Vs the Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati and 3 Ors.

Vikrant Singh Vs the Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati and 3 Ors.