Md. Rahman Ali Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER NORTH GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE AMINGAON GUWAHATI. 4:KASIM ALI S/O- LT. AHMED ALI VILL.- NO. 2 JALAH P.O.- CHANGSARI DIST.- KAMRUP ASSAM

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.K LAHKAR, MS.A MAHANTA,MR.A ALI,MS.M KHATUN Advocate for the Respondent : MS.I CHOUDHURY, MR.S RAHMAN,GA, ASSAM,MR.S H SIKDAR,MR.B K DAS

¶12

Page No.# 2/3

¶13

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶14

ORDER

¶15

03.06.2025

¶16

Heard Mr. A. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the private respondents, though, notices were duly served.

¶17

The petitioner claim to be legal owner of the disputed plot of land in question in village Jalah in the North Guwahati Revenue Circle. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order of mutation granted to one of his cousin brother Md. Kasim Ali (respondent No. 4). According to the petitioner, the father of the respondent No. 4, Ahmed Ali sold away his land measuring 3 Kathas 1 Lecha to one Haijan Ali.

¶18

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the land in question was sold away by the father of the private respondents, the claim for mutation on that land made by the other sons of Ahmed Ali was rejected, earlier. However, mutation was granted to the respondent No. 4.

¶19

Being aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the mutation before the Additional Deputy Commission, Kamrup (R), however, such claim was also rejected by the said authority on 07.06.2013 in R.A. Case No. 6/12-13 and the resultant challenge to the Revenue Board was also rejected by impugned judgment dated 07.07.2014.

¶20

This Court has perused the order dated 20.01.1997 passed in Mutation Case No. 515/06-07 by the Circle Officer, North Guwahati Revenue Circle, rejecting the mutation as well as the order dated 07.06.2013 passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (R) in R.A. Case No. 6/12-13 and also the judgment dated 07.07.2014 passed in Case No. 67RA(K)/2013 by the Assam Board of Revenue.

¶21

Page No.# 3/3

¶22

What is discernible from the aforesaid order(s) and judgments(s) are that the claim of the petitioner is based on sale deed and the claim of the respondent No. 4 is based on inheritance. And therefore, essentially the dispute is a civil dispute over title. Therefore, in the fitness of thing, the parties should be relegated to an appropriate civil Court for determination of their right, title, interest and possession inasmuch as the entire claims revolves around their right, title and interest over the land and such disputed questions cannot be determined by the Revenue Authorities.

¶23

Accordingly, the parties are relegated to the Civil Court, if they so desire, to settle their dispute which includes right, title, interest and possession as per law.

¶24

The orders impugned in this petition i.e. order dated 20.01.1997 passed in Mutation Case No. 515/06-07 by the Circle Officer, North Guwahati Revenue Circle as well as the order dated 07.06.2013 passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (R) in R.A. Case No. 6/12-13 and also the judgment dated 07.07.2014 passed in Case No. 67RA(K)/2013 by the Assam Board of Revenue, shall be subject to and depend upon determination of the dispute by the Civil Court, if the parties approach.

¶25

With the aforesaid, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

Comparing Assistant

Md. Rahman Ali v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Rahman Ali v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hari Shankar Biswas and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Jibon Kardong Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Sami Akhtara Begum Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Ruth Yvonne Ursula Gomez Vs Union of India and 10 Ors.

Ruth Yvonne Ursula Gomez Vs Union of India and 10 Others

Haresh Chandra Handique and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.