Miss Moon Moon Das Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Heard Mr. M. A. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G. Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. N. Goswami, learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3.

¶23

2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to process and finalise his application for partition, submitted through Seva Setu on 01.11.2025, in respect of land measuring 0B-2 Kathas-7 Lessas covered by Dag No. 299, Khiraj Myadi Patta No. 207, situated at village Bebejia Koibarta under Mouza Lahowal in the district of Dibrugarh, Assam.

¶24

3. The case of the petitioner is that he had purchased a plot of land measuring 0B-2 Kathas-7 Lessas covered by Dag No. 299, Khiraj Myadi Patta No. 207, situated at village Bebejia Koibarta under Mouza Lahowal in the district of Dibrugarh, Assam, for construction of a residential house from one Shri Kanuj Das, respondent No. 4 herein, by a registered Sale Deed No. 992 dated 28.03.2023. Subsequently, the name of the petitioner was mutated as a copattadar vide order dated 29.05.2024 passed in Mutation Case No. DIB/DIBE/2023-24/20240006017/FMUT by the Circle Officer, Dibrugarh East Revenue Circle, and his name was accordingly entered in the Jamabandi.

¶25

4. It is the contention of the petitioner that, being a co-pattadar of the aforesaid land, he applied for demarcation of boundaries as per the schedule of

¶26

Page No.# 3/5

¶27

the Sale Deed, as well as for partition of the patta through Seva Setu on 01.11.2025. However, the respondent authorities have not processed or finalised the said application despite repeated approaches.

¶28

5. Mr. M. A. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that since the petitioner had purchased the aforesaid land vide a registered Sale Deed, consequent to which his name has been mutated in the land records as a copattadar and accordingly entered in the Jamabandi, the respondent authorities are duty-bound to cause field verification and demarcate the land as well as to effect partition in terms of the relevant provisions of law. Therefore, he submits that an appropriate direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to process and finalise the application for partition of the land of the petitioner.

¶29

6. Ms. G. Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue Department, and Mr. N. Goswami, learned Government Advocate, while referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, submit that upon field verification conducted by the Lot Mandal of the Office of the Dibrugarh East Revenue Circle, it was found that the petitioner is in possession of the plot of land covered by Dag No. 298 instead of Dag No. 299, located at Bebejia Koibarta Gaon under Lahowal Mouza, Dibrugarh. Although mutation was allowed, the report of the Circle Officer, Dibrugarh East Revenue Circle, dated 13.02.2026, upon field verification clearly reflects that the petitioner is in possession of land covered by Dag No. 298 instead of Dag No. 299. Therefore, no partition can be effected until such discrepancy is resolved and as such, the petitioner cannot be granted partition.

¶30

7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials available on record.

¶31

Page No.# 4/5

¶32

8. It appears that the petitioner had purchased land measuring 0B-2 Kathas7 Lessas covered by Dag No. 299, Khiraj Myadi Patta No. 207, situated at village Bebejia Koibarta under Mouza Lahowal in the district of Dibrugarh, Assam, by registered Sale Deed dated 28.03.2023. Subsequently, his name was mutated as a co-pattadar vide order dated 29.05.2024 and duly recorded in the Jamabandi.

¶33

9. A perusal of the affidavit of respondent No. 2 clearly reflects that, upon field verification conducted by the Lot Mandal and the Circle Officer, Dibrugarh East Revenue Circle, it was found that the petitioner is in possession of land measuring 0B-2 Kathas-7 Lessas, covered by Dag No. 298 of Patta No. 207 instead of Dag No. 299 of Patta No. 207. However, the land purchased by the petitioner is covered by Dag No. 299 of Patta No. 207, which is clearly reflected in the registered Sale Deed dated 28.03.2023.

¶34

10. Upon consideration of the above position, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to get the Dag number of the land corrected and until the same is corrected, the respondent authorities would not be in a position to process and finalise the application for demarcation and partition, as it has been found by the respondent authorities that the land under the possession of the petitioner is covered by Dag No. 298, whereas as per the registered Sale Deed, mutation order and Jamabandi, the land claimed to have been purchased by the petitioner is covered by Dag No. 299. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the respondent authorities have rightly refused to process and finalise the partition of the land in question until the records are corrected.

¶35

11. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the grievance of the petitioner seeking a direction to process and finalise the application for partition of the aforesaid land cannot be acceded to. Accordingly,

¶36

Page No.# 5/5

¶37

the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶38

12. However, the dismissal of the writ petition shall not preclude the petitioner from approaching the respondent authorities for correction of the discrepancies with regard to the Dag number of the land under his possession, as may be permissible under law.

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

Comparing Assistant

Miss Moon Moon Das v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Miss Moon Moon Das v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Meghalaya Oxygen Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

The Upper Assam Motor Transport Owner'S Association Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Emal Hembrom and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Baid Pariwahan Limited Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

M/S Lima Akum Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Rajen Deuri and 3 Ors. Vs State of Assam and 5 Ors.