Chintamoni Mahanta Vs the State of Assam — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Chintamoni Mahanta Vs the State of Assam — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010128012025

undefined

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

Case No. : WP(C)/3388/2025

CHINTAMONI MAHANTA

S/O- LATE ATUL CHANDRAMAHANTA, R/O UDAYNAGAR. KOINADHORA, PO KHANAPARA, PS BASISTHA, DISTRICT KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN 781022

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 06

2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KAMRUP M GUWAHATI ASSAM

3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER DISPUR REVENUE CIRCLE DISPUR GUWAHATI

4:ANJANA BASUMATARY R/O NAMGHAR PATH BAGHARBARI GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN 78102

Advocate for the Petitioner : V KHAKHALARY, C SARMA,MS. P SAHARIA,MR. P MAHANTA

Advocate for the Respondent : SC. REVENUE, GA, ASSAM

Page No.# 2/3

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER

20.06.2025

Heard Shri P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Also heard Shri S.S. Roy, learned State Counsel whereas Ms. P.R. Mahanta, learned Counsel has appeared for the Revenue Department.

The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:

“In these premises, it is therefore, prayed that your lordship may graciously be pleased to admit this petition, issue notices, issue rule, calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ in a nature of certiorari and mandamus not be issued as prayed for.

And to show cause as to why a writ of mandamus should not be issued directing the respondents, more particularly the respondent No. 3 to restore the petitioner's name in Jamabandi as well as Chitha in respect of his land measuring 1 Katha 5 lessa covered by Dag No. 211(old)/446(old)/717(New) and Kheraj Patta No. 55(Old)/173(old)/789(New) which is mistakenly deleted, and to bring back the status of the petitioner's land to its original status as on 2009 on the basis of the Registered sale deed no. 3045/08 dated 22/2/2008, mutation and land holdings certificate of the petitioner dated 28/1/2009.

And to show cause as to why the mutation order dated 13/7/2016 passed by the circle officer in Miscellaneous case no 225/15-16 retaining the name of respondent no 4 by deleting the name of other pattader including the petitioner in respect of the land measuring 13.26

Ar. covered by Dag no 717 of patta no. 789 situated at Revenue village Bagharbori mouza Beltola should not be set aside and quashed.

And to show cause as to why an order or direction should not be issued directing the Respondents to provide the information sought by the petitioner through his RTI application dated 7/3/2025 before the respondent No. 3.

And after entering of the parties and cause or causes being shown your lordships may be pleased to pass such order/orders as your lordship may deem

Page No.# 3/3

fit and proper.

And in interim, pending disposal of the petition your lordship may be pleased to cancel the mutation order dated 13/7/2016 passed by the circle officer in Miscellaneous case no 225/15-16.

And for this act of kindness the petitioner is duty bound shall ever pray.”

Shri Mahanta, the learned counsel has submitted that he had instituted a proceeding under the Land Grabbing Act in respect of the land in question.

To a specific query, the learned counsel has also submitted that a civil suit has been filed by the petitioner as plaintiff which is pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kamrup (M).

The prayers made in the writ petition clearly appear to be within the ambit of the said civil suit concerning the right, title and interest of the land in question.

In any case, the matters sought to be projected are factual in nature wherein there is a dispute with the private respondents. The jurisdiction of a Writ Court cannot be used for pre-empting the decision which may be taken by a competent Civil Court. Such jurisdiction are extra-ordinary in nature and not to be generally invoked wherein there are avenues for redressal of grievance.

In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed.

It is however observed that the civil suit which is stated to be pending since 2013 may be taken up in an expeditious manner and an endeavour would be made for its early disposal.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant