Md. Siraj Uddin Khan Vs Md. Nazrul Hoque and 18 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/12

¶2

GAHC010216032023

¶3

2026:GAU-AS:6096

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : CRP(IO)/387/2023

¶6

MD. SIRAJ UDDIN KHAN

¶7

S/O LT. SAHED ALI KHAN, VILL-LAHARIPAM, P.O.-GAROIMARI, P.S. AND MOUZA-LAHARIGHAT, DIST-MORIGAON, ASSAM

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

MD. NAZRUL HOQUE AND 18 ORS S/O LT. JOBED ALI, R/O VILL-LAHARIPAM, P.S.-LAHARIGHAT, MOUZALAHARIGHAT, DIST-MORIGAON, ASSAM

¶10

2:MUSTT. CHAND BHANU W/O MD. NAZRUL HOQUE R/O VILL-LAHARIPAM P.S.-LAHARIGHAT MOUZA-LAHARIGHAT DIST-MORIGAON ASSAM

¶11

3:MD. MUZARUL ISLAM S/O MD. NAZRUL HOQUE R/O VILL-LAHARIPAM P.S.-LAHARIGHAT MOUZA-LAHARIGHAT DIST-MORIGAON ASSAM

¶12

4:MD. INAMUL ISLAM S/O MD. NAZRUL HOQUE R/O VILL-LAHARIPAM P.S.-LAHARIGHAT MOUZA-LAHARIGHAT DIST-MORIGAON

¶13

Page No.# 2/12

¶14

ASSAM

¶15

5:MD. MANJUR ILAHI S/O MD. NAZRUL HOQUE R/O VILL-LAHARIPAM P.S.-LAHARIGHAT MOUZA-LAHARIGHAT DIST-MORIGAON ASSAM

¶16

6:MD. LAL MAMUD

¶17

S/O MD. NAZRUL HOQUE R/O VILL-LAHARIPAM P.S.-LAHARIGHAT MOUZA-LAHARIGHAT DIST-MORIGAON ASSAM

¶18

7:MD. NUR MOHAMMAD S/O LT. JOBED ALI R/O VILL-LAHARIPAM P.S.-LAHARIGHAT MOUZA-LAHARIGHAT DIST-MORIGAON ASSAM

¶19

8:MD. KHAIRUL ISLAM S/O MD. NUR MOHAMMAD R/O VILL-LAHARIPAM P.S.-LAHARIGHAT MOUZA-LAHARIGHAT DIST-MORIGAON ASSAM

¶20

9:MD. IKRAMUL ISLAM S/O MD. NUR MOHAMMAD R/O VILL-LAHARIPAM P.S.-LAHARIGHAT MOUZA-LAHARIGHAT DIST-MORIGAON ASSAM

¶21

10:MD. MAINUL ISLAM S/O MD. NUR MOHAMMAD R/O VILL-LAHARIPAM P.S.-LAHARIGHAT MOUZA-LAHARIGHAT DIST-MORIGAON

¶22

Page No.# 3/12

¶23

ASSAM

¶24

11:MD. NASAR ALI S/O LT. JOBED ALI R/O VILL-LAHARIPAM P.S.-LAHARIGHAT MOUZA-LAHARIGHAT DIST-MORIGAON ASSAM

¶25

12:MUSTT. MANOWARA W/O MD. NASAR ALI R/O VILL-LAHARIPAM P.S.-LAHARIGHAT MOUZA-LAHARIGHAT DIST-MORIGAON ASSAM

¶26

13:MD. ALOM S/O MD. NASAR ALI R/O VILL-LAHARIPAM P.S.-LAHARIGHAT MOUZA-LAHARIGHAT DIST-MORIGAON ASSAM

¶27

14:MD. ASHADUL S/O MD. NASAR ALI R/O VILL-LAHARIPAM P.S.-LAHARIGHAT MOUZA-LAHARIGHAT DIST-MORIGAON ASSAM

¶28

15:MISS REMINA D/O MD. NASAR ALI R/O VILL-LAHARIPAM P.S.-LAHARIGHAT MOUZA-LAHARIGHAT DIST-MORIGAON ASSAM

¶29

16:MD. NAJAR ALI S/O LT. JOBED ALI R/O VILL-LAHARIPAM P.S.-LAHARIGHAT MOUZA-LAHARIGHAT DIST-MORIGAON

¶30

Page No.# 4/12

¶31

ASSAM

¶32

17:MUSTT. SAHIDA KHATUN W/O MD. NAJAR ALI R/O VILL-LAHARIPAM P.S.-LAHARIGHAT MOUZA-LAHARIGHAT DIST-MORIGAON ASSAM

¶33

18:MD. MUZAHARUL S/O MD. NAJAR ALI R/O VILL-LAHARIPAM P.S.-LAHARIGHAT MOUZA-LAHARIGHAT DIST-MORIGAON ASSAM

¶34

19:MD. ZEHIRUL S/O MD. NAJAR ALI R/O VILL-LAHARIPAM P.S.-LAHARIGHAT MOUZA-LAHARIGHAT DIST-MORIGAON ASSA

¶35

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J AHMED, MR. R ISLAM,H G DAISY,R BEGUM,MS A HUSSAIN

¶36

Advocate for the Respondent : ,

¶37

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

¶38

ORDER

¶39

02.05.2026

¶40

Heard Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents on call, though, notice was duly served upon them, in view of the order of the Lawazima Court, dated 06.11.2025.

¶41

2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the

¶42

Page No.# 5/12

¶43

petitioner has challenged the Order, dated 16.08.2023, passed in Misc. Appeal No. 02/2022, by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Morigaon.

¶44

3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order, dated 16.08.2023, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Morigaon (hereinafter, learned Appellate Court), has set aside the injunction order, dated 20.12.2021, passed by the learned Munsiff No. 2 (hereinafter, learned Trial Court), in Misc. (J) Case No. 50/2020.

¶45

4. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of a plot of land measuring 2 Kathas, out of total land of 11 Bighas 1 Katha 5 Lechas, covered by Dag no. 171, Р.Р. No. 16, situated at Laharipam kissam, under Laharighat Mouza and another plot of land measuring 3 Kathas, covered by Dag No. 520, P.P. No. 203, situated at Laharipam kissam, under Laharighat Mouza; which is the subject matter of the suit.

¶46

4.1 Mr. Ahmed also submits that one Bagiram Bordoloi and one Mahendra Bordoloi were the original pattadars of suit Patta No.16, Dag no. 171, containing 11 Bigha 1 Katha 5 Lechas of land and they sold the entire plot of land to Abul Kalam, Samsuddin, Jabed Ali and Hamed Ali, who again sold the land to Wajuddin, who again sold the land to Abul Kasem, Sahidul Islam, Shirazuddin Khan, Sahed Ali, Hafizuddin and Kutubuddin. Then the petitioner herein, Md. Shirazuddin, had purchased 2 Bighas 2 Kathas 10 Lechas and 2 Kathas 10 Lechas from Giyasuddin, who is the son of Wajuddin; and since then, he has been in possession of the said land. He also submits that the P.P. No. 203, consists of 4 Dags, being 115, 119, 429 and 520, measuring 6 Bighas 3 Kathas 4 Lechas of land and the petitioner herein is the absolute owner of the entire suit land.

¶47

4.2 Mr. Ahmed further submits that the opposite parties/defendants have

¶48

Page No.# 6/12

¶49

requested the petitioner to allow them to reside over 2 Kathas of land covered by Dag No. 520, P.P. No. 203, situated at Laharipam kissam, under Laharighat Mouza, in the district of Morigaon, as permissive possessors and the respondents herein had initially constructed a ‘ Chali Ghar’ and agreed to vacate the land after 1 year, but subsequently, they had extended their possession over 5 Kathas of land. Though, the petitioner had requested them to vacate the land several times, but they failed to do so, instead, they started doing permanent construction over the suit land, even though, they have no right, title and interest over the suit land, as the petitioner herein is the absolute owner of the same. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted one title suit, being T.S. No. 45/2020, for declaration of right, title and interest and for recovery of khas possession and permanent injunction; and another application, under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC, read with Section 151 CPC, upon which, Misc. (J) Case No. 50/2020, has been registered.

¶50

4.3 It is the further submission of Mr. Ahmed, that on receipt of notice, the respondents herein had entered appearance and filed their written objection, denying the statements and averments made by the petitioner herein and their stand is that the petition is not maintainable and it is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and they have also taken a stand that the Suit Dag Nos. 115, 119, 429, 520, P.P. No. 203, containing a total land of 6 Bighas 3 Kathas 4 Lechas, never belonged to the petitioner and that they have been in possession of the said land since 1974 and prior to that, their predecessors were in possession of the said land and the predecessors of the opposite parties/defendants had dug a fishery over a plot of land measuring 1 Bigha 3 Kathas 5 Lechas, covered by Dag No. 119, and in the remaining land covered by Dag No. 429, they were doing cultivation there; and the petitioner, in collusion

¶51

Page No.# 7/12

¶52

with the Lat Mandal, had recorded his name as pattadar of the land, covered by P.P. No. 203, Dag Nos. 115, 119, 429 and 520, without following the legal procedure and as such, he never acquired any right, title and interest over the suit schedule land therefore, they had prayed for dismissal of the said petition.

¶53

4.4 Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that then, upon hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and also, considering the facts and circumstances on record, the learned Trial Court passed status-quo order in respect of possession with regard to the suit land, till disposal of the main suit.

¶54

4.5 Mr. Ahmed also submits that then, being aggrieved, the respondents herein have preferred one Misc. Appeal No. 02/2022, before the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Morigaon, and thhen, upon hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, the learned Appellate Court, vide impugned order, dated 16.08.2023, had set aside the order of status-quo, dated 20.12.2021, passed by the learned Trial Court, in Misc. (J) Case No. 50/2020.

¶55

4.6 Mr. Ahmed further submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Court suffers from manifest illegalities, in respect of its finding concerning the prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and on such count, the same requires interference of this Court. He also submits that the trial of the suit is going on and till final decision is arrived at by the learned Court below, the order of status-quo, so granted by the learned Trial Court, may be maintained.

¶56

4.7 It is the further submission of Mr. Ahmed that the petitioner is the owner of the suit land and the same is denied by the respondents herein and the petitioner had purchased the said land in the year 1992, from one Giyasuddin,

¶57

Page No.# 8/12

¶58

son of Wajuddin; and since then, he has been in possession of the same and he had also paid land revenue and that, in the month of November, on the request of the respondents herein, the petitioner had allowed them to reside there as ‘permissive occupier’ and the respondents herein could not produce any document in support of the same and as such, they have no right, title and interest over the suit land and on that count, the finding of the learned Appellate Court that a prima-facie case is there and that the balance of convenience is not in favour of the respondents and that, they will suffer irreparable loss; is illegal and arbitrary and therefore, it is contended to interfere with the same.

¶59

5. Having heard the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the impugned order, dated 16.08.2023, passed by the learned Appellate Court; and the injunction order, dated 20.12.2021, passed by the learned Trial Court, in Misc. (J) Case No. 50/2020.

¶60

6. It appears that the learned Trial Court, in its order, dated 20.12.2021, passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 50/2020; has observed that upon a close perusal of the pleadings and documents, it appears that the petitioner/plaintiff has a prima facie case in his favour, in that the claim he made in respect of the suit schedule land, that he is the owner of the suit schedule land, is denied by the opposite parties/defendants, who had stated that the predecessors of the opposite parties/defendants were the actual owners of the suit schedule land and after their death, the opposite parties became the owners by way of inheritance. The petitioner/plaintiff admittedly does not have possession over the suit schedule land, though he claims to have purchased the same by a registered sale deed. In such a case, if the opposite parties/defendants are not restrained by granting

¶61

Page No.# 9/12

¶62

an order of injunction, it might cause great hardship to the petitioner, who has claimed to purchase the suit land and thereafter, the learned Trial Court has directed to maintain the status-quo.

¶63

7. However, from a perusal of the impugned order, dated 16.08.2023, passed by the learned Appellate Court; it appears that the learned First Appellate Court interfered with the order of the learned Trial Court, on the ground that the learned Trial Court has failed to discuss about the ‘three golden principles’ in its order and thereafter, it discussed about the prima-facie case, the balance of convenience and irreparable loss; and found all the three golden principles in favour of the respondents herein and thereafter, set aside the order of the learned Trial Court, dated 20.12.2021, granting injunction.

¶64

8. It also appears that upon discussing about the prima-facie case, the learned Appellate Court, having gone through the pleadings, held that the petitioner/respondent therein had made out a prima-facie case, as he had contended that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit; that the opposite parties are only permissive possessors and the opposite parties had refused to vacate the suit land, despite repeated requests, and contended that they have been in possession of the said land since 1974. Prior to that, their predecessors were in possession of the said plot of land and that their predecessors had dug a fishery over a plot of land measuring 1 Bigha 3 Kathas 5 Lechas, covered by Dag No. 119 and in the remaining land covered by Dag No. 429, they were doing cultivation and as such, it was held that a prima-facie appears to have been made out by the petitioner.

¶65

9. In respect of the balance of convenience, the learned Appellate Court has observed that the suit land is admittedly in possession and though, the

¶66

Page No.# 10/12

¶67

petitioner has claimed that the opposite parties are permissive possessors, the opposite parties have contended that they are the owners of the suit land. Thereafter, the learned Appellate Court has observed that if the opposite parties/appellants are restrained from constructing structures over the suit, which they claim to be possessing since 1974; they would suffer much greater inconvenience, compared to any inconvenience that the petitioner/respondent therein may suffer; and restraining the opposite parties would be like restraining them from enjoying the suit land, which they claim to be possessing and therefore, the learned Appellate Court has found the balance of convenience, in respect of the respondents herein.

¶68

10. In respect of irreparable loss, the learned Appellate Court has held that the petitioner would not suffer any irreparable loss or injury, if temporary injunction is not granted. The structure, if any, constructed by the opposite parties/appellants over the suit land can be demolished and the petitioner can be compensated sufficiently in the event of the suit being decreed in favour of the petitioner/respondent; and on such ground, the learned Appellate Court has found the principle of irreparable loss or injury in favour of the respondents herein and thereafter, interfered with the order of learned Trial Court.

¶69

11. It appears from the finding of the learned Trial Court that the petitioner herein is the owner of the suit land, which he purchased from one Giyasuddin, by a registered sale deed and the respondents herein are permissive occupiers. Further, it appears that thoug, the learned Trial Court had not discussed in express words, yet, it had discussed all the principles in substance.

¶70

12. Mr. Ahmed has pointed it out that the respondents herein could not show their right, title and interest over the suit land and also, the right, title and

¶71

Page No.# 11/12

¶72

interest over the suit land of their predecessors. He also submits that admittedly, the petitioner herein is not in possession of the suit land, as it was under the possession of the respondents herein, who are the permissive occupiers and according to him, the finding of the learned Trial Court, in respect of the prima-facie case and the balance of convenience being in favour of the respondent herein; is illegal and arbitrary.

¶73

13. There appears to be substance in the submission of Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. The prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss cannot be found in favour of a permissive occupier. Though, they are in possession of the land, yet, they had failed to produce before the learned Trial Court any proof, to establish their right, title and interest over the suit land.

¶74

14. It is a fact that the learned Trial Court has not discussed any of the three golden principles, while granting the status-quo order. But, as discussed hereinabove in substance, all the three principles have been discussed. After taking note of all the facts and circumstances and applying discretion, it had directed the parties to maintain status-quo, to preserve the suit property, till disposal of the Title Suit. And as such, the order of the learned Trial Court ought not to have interfered with lightly.

¶75

15. In that view of the matter, the finding of the learned Appellate Court, in respect of withholding any discussion by the learned Trial Court in respect of the aforesaid three principles, seems to be unjustified. Further, the finding of the learned Appellate Court in respect of the prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, in favour of the respondent herein, to the considered opinion of this Court and in view of the pleadings and submission of

¶76

Page No.# 12/12

¶77

the learned counsel for the petitioner; fails to withstand the legal scrutiny. The respondents, being the permissive occupiers, had also failed to show any documents in support of their right, title and interest over the suit land.

¶78

16. In the result, this Court finds sufficient merit in this petition and accordingly, the same stands allowed. The impugned order, dated 16.08.2023, stands set aside and quashed. Consequently, the order of the learned Trial Court, dated 20.12.2021, stands restored; pursuant to which, the parties have to maintain status-quo, till disposal of the suit.

¶79

17. In terms of the above, this Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of.

¶80

JUDGE

¶81

Comparing Assistant

Md. Siraj Uddin Khan v. Md. Nazrul Hoque and 18 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Siraj Uddin Khan v. Md. Nazrul Hoque and 18 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Wajid Hussain Alias Munna Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Kuldip Singh Vs Pradip Kumar Poddar

Lovely Das Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Ashad Ali Sheikh and 9 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Utpal Nath Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Kamalesh Agarwalla Vs Jay Kishore Sahu