Gauhati High Court
Subhash Vasudev vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 21 August, 2025
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010081082024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/264/2024
SUBHASH VASUDEV
SON OF LATE RAM ASRA VASUDEV,
RESIDENT OF TEMPLE LANE, KALIBARI,
P.O AND P.S- LUMDING, DISTRICT- NAGAON, PIN- 782447.
VERSUS
1.THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006.
2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NAGAON
DIST.NAGAON PIN - 782001.
3:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE
HOJAI OFFICE OF THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER CIVIL HOJAI
SANKARDEV NAGAR DIST. NAGAON PIN - 782442.
4:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE
LUMDING POLICE STATION P.O. and MOUZA- LUMDING
DIST. NAGAON PIN - 782447.
5:SUSHIL KUMAR VASUDEVA
S/O LT. RAM ASRA VASUDEVA
R/O TEMPLE LANE
KALIBARI P.O. and P.S. LUMDING DIST. NAGAON PIN - 782447
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. P. Kataki, Advocate.
Mrs. R. Begum, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Ms. S. Sarma, Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
: Mr. N. Deka, Advocate for respondent No.5.
Page No.# 2/3
-B E F O R E -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
21.08.2025
(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)
The writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated
17.02.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C)
No.6038/2015.
In the present case, 2(two) brothers are fighting each other for
possession of a particular piece of land.
The respondent No.5/writ petitioner initiated a proceeding under
Section 145/146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was registered as MR
Case No.209/1999.
The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate by order dated 03.12.2001
declared the possession of the other brother over the said portion of land, who
is the appellant herein.
The effort made by the writ petitioner/respondent No.5 herein of having
such order declaring the possession of the appellant nullified, failed at every
stage. However, in the meantime, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate under
the garb of executing the order dated 03.12.2001, directed respondent No.4/the
Officer in Charge of the concerned Police Station to deliver possession of the
land to the appellant. This was without any direction by the learned Magistrate
in the M.R. Case.
Such an order was challenged, though wrongly, in a Title Suit in which
the prayer for injunction was rejected.
The learned counsel for the respondent No.5 is not in a position to tell
Page No.# 3/3
us about the stage of the Title Suit presently.
The records reveal that after the order of the Magistrate was passed in
the M.R. case declaring the possession of the appellant, nothing was done at his
end for having his possession over the land in question confirmed.
In such a circumstance, there could have been no direction by any
authority for handing over the possession to the appellant when there was an
adjudication about his remaining in possession all through.
It appears that both sides have filed criminal cases against each other.
The allegation in both the FIRs is not known to us presently.
The learned Single Judge, therefore, under the facts and circumstances
of the case observed that in the absence of any positive order for delivering the
possession of the said plot of land to the appellant, no such effort could have
been made by any authority. If at all the possession of the appellant is disturbed
on any count, he has the option of approaching the concerned authority for the
needful. The learned Single Judge, however, has observed, while concluding,
that the appellant would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law in case
his possession is disturbed or he is sought to be evicted.
We do not find any reason to differ with the afore-noted observation of
the learned Single Judge.
Otherwise also, there does not appear to be any merit in this appeal.
The appeal stands dismissed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
