Md. Gafur Ali Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Md. Gafur Ali Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None by this Court; the writ petition was closed as infructuous after both sides confirmed that possession of the subject-plot had been delivered pursuant to the Order dated 06.11.2024.

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent no. 4 (Circle Officer, Sarthebari Revenue Circle) had complied with the Order dated 06.11.2024 of respondent no. 3 (Additional District Magistrate, Barpeta) directing delivery of khas possession of the subject-plot (measuring 1 Bigha 1 Katha, Dag no. 188, Patta no. 74, Village Chinadi Pathar, Lot no. 2, Mouza Sarthebari) to the petitioner.

Court's answer

On the submissions of learned counsel for both sides that the direction given in the Order dated 06.11.2024 had been complied with (possession of the subject-plot having been handed over to the petitioner), the Court held that no cause of action survived in the writ petition for adjudication.

Ratio / Principle

Accordingly, the writ petition was closed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Md. Gafur Ali Ahmed v. The State of Assam & 3 Ors., WP(C)/393/2025, Gauhati High Court (Manish Choudhury, J.). The petitioner sought implementation of the Order dated 06.11.2024 passed by respondent no. 3 (Additional District Magistrate, Barpeta) in Case no. 86/2023, initiated under Sections 107/145/146, CrPC, directing respondent no. 4 (Circle Officer, Sarthebari Revenue Circle) to deliver khas possession of a plot measuring 1 Bigha 1 Katha, Dag no. 188, Patta no. 74, Village Chinadi Pathar, Mouza Sarthebari, enjoyed by the petitioner and his brothers by inheritance. When moved on 10.02.2025, the Court sought compliance instructions; learned counsel for both sides confirmed the direction had been complied with by handing over possession. Finding that no cause of action survived for adjudication, the Court closed the writ petition. Note: the printed order date '03.03.2024' precedes the in-document events (order of 06.11.2024; petition moved 10.02.2025) and appears to be a typographical/OCR error.

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010012982025

2025:GAU-AS:2197

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

Case No. : WP(C)/393/2025

MD. GAFUR ALI AHMED

SON OF LATE RAHMAN ALI, VILLAGE- KHUDRA SINADI (SANAPUR), POLICE STATION- MUKALMUA, DIST.- BARPETA, ASSAM

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS

REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06

2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BARPETA DISTRICT- BARPETA ASSAM

3:ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BARPETA DISTRICT- BARPETA ASSAM

4:CIRCLE OFFICER SARTHEBARI REVENUE CIRCLE DISTRICT- BARPETA ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S RANA, MR. M K MISRA

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

Page No.# 2/3

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

ORDER

03.03.2024

Heard Mr. M.K. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for the respondent no. 1; and Mr. N. Goswami, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4.

The petitioner had approached this Court with the projection that in respect of a plot of land, measuring 1 Bigha 1 Katha, covered by Dag no. 188 & Patta no. 74, situate at Village – Chinadi Pathar, Lot no. 2, Mouza – Sarthebari [‘the subject-plot’], the petitioner claimed that he along with his brothers had been enjoying the ownership and possession by virtue of inheritance. When a dispute arose, a proceeding was initiated under Sections 107/145/146, CrPC by the respondent no. 3 vide Case no. 86/2023. After hearing the parties; and also upon perusal of the records and reports received from the concerned revenue staff, the respondent no. 3 had passed an Order on 06.11.2024 [Annexure-9 to the writ petition] directing the respondent no. 4 to deliver khas possession of the subject-plot to the petitioner. As the respondent no. 4 had not acted upon the said Order dated 06.11.2024 despite the Order dated 06.11.2024 being brought to his knowledge, the petitioner had to approach this Court by the writ petition.

When the writ petition was moved on 10.02.2025, the learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam was asked to obtain instructions from the respondent no. 4 as regards compliance or otherwise of the Order dated 06.11.2024.

Mr. Goswami, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam on the basis of instructions received by him from the respondent no. 4, has submitted that the direction given in the Order dated 06.11.2024 has since been complied with.

Mr. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted, on the basis of

Page No.# 3/3

instruction received from the petitioner, that the direction given in the Order dated 06.11.2024 has been complied with by handing over the possession of the subject-plot to the petitioner.

In view of the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties in the afore-stated manner that the direction given in the Order dated 06.11.2024 has been complied with, there is no cause of action survives in the writ petition for adjudication. The writ petition is accordingly closed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant