[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam 5 Ors on 10 December, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010265752025
2025:GAU-AS:17033-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/398/2025
SMTI MAUSUMI DE
W/O SANJAY KUMAR DEY,
R/O CHANDMARI ROAD, TARAPUR, SILCHAR TOWN,
PH BARAKPUR, P.O. TARAPUR, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN 788003
VERSUS
1.THE STATE OF ASSAM 5 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF
ASSAM , REVENUE DPT, DISPUR , GUWAHATI 06
2:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
REVENUE (S) DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 06
3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CACHAR SILCHAR
4:THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CACHAR SILCHAR
5:THE ASSIATANT SETTLEMENT OFFICER
SADAR CIRCLE SILCHAR DIST- CACHARASSAM
6:THE CHAIRPERSON SILCHAR
MUNICIPAL BOARD DIST- CACHARASSAM
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. P. Chakraborty, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Ms. N. Bordoloi, Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for
respondent Nos.1 & 2.
: Mr. D.K. Sarmah, Additional Senior Government Advocate,
Assam for respondent Nos.3, 4 & 5.
: Mr. S. Dutta, Standing Counsel, Silchar Municipal Board for
respondent No.6.
Page No.# 2/5
-B E F O R E -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
10.12.2025
(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)
We have heard Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned Advocate for the
appellant; Ms. N. Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue
Department for respondent Nos.1 and 2; Mr. D.K. Sarmah, learned
Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for respondent Nos.3, 4
and 5 and Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Silchar Municipal
Board for respondent No.6.
Vide impugned judgment dated 13.11.2025 passed by a learned
Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.4748/2018, the appellant has been
directed to remove the obstruction/encroachment in the land and
construction which was sold to her, within a period of 30(thirty) days from
the date of passing of the judgment (13.11.2025), failing which, it would
be open for the respondents to remove the encroachment over the
portion of the land over which a 10 feet wide road was conceived of in
the main settlement by way of modification.
The appellant contends that the property in question was settled
in favour of her father-in-law in the year 1991. The possession of the land
was given to him in the year 1992.
The parents-in-law of the appellant died in 2001 and 2003,
respectively, whereafter her husband inherited the property who sold the
Page No.# 3/5
same to her vide a sale-deed executed in the year 2005.
The appellant had obtained loan for constructing a house over
the said land and in the process, had also obtained the trace map of the
land. There was no indication to the appellant that the original
settlement with her father-in-law was modified and a provision was made
for a 10 feet wide road in the area of the land, which was originally
settled with her father-in-law.
The modification in the original settlement order was effected in
1992.
An attempt was made by the respondents in the year 2012 to
demolish a part of the building belonging to the appellant standing over
the area which was earmarked for a 10 feet wide road.
This led the appellant to approach this Court vide a writ petition
but she was relegated to the Settlement authorities for settlement of such
a dispute.
The appellant continued litigating, challenging the correctness
or existence of the modified land settlement, but to no avail. Ultimately,
she again approached this Court after Board of Revenue having refused
to exercise its jurisdiction to decide the issue.
The learned Single Judge, after having noted down the history of
the litigation, found that the parents-in-law of the appellant survived till
2001 and 2003, respectively, but they had made no objection to the
modified settlement order. Thus, presumption being in favour of the
existence of the modified settlement order, providing for a 10 feet wide
Page No.# 4/5
road in the original plan of the transfer of the land in favour of the original
settlement holder.
Since the property in question was sold to the appellant by her
husband who had inherited the same from his parents, the appellant got
in possession of the property along with all encumbrances and she is
entitled to only that part of the land which exists as per the modified
settlement order.
The appellant is aggrieved by the learned Single Judge drawing
a presumption in favour of the existence of the modified settlement plan
on the ground that it was never made available to her, nor was it
available with the respondents at the time when the trace map was
obtained by her for obtaining the loan.
We are of the considered view that this issue could not have
been adjudicated in a writ jurisdiction and the learned Single Judge
ought to have relegated the appellant to the appropriate forum for a
decision with respect to the existence of the modified land settlement
order and thus, the validity of the modified settlement plan.
Be that as it may, since the learned Single Judge did not interfere
with the declaration of the respondents that the settlement order had
been modified in the year 1992, he directed the appellant to remove the
obstruction/part of the building which stood over the land which was
meant for a 10 feet wide road, within a period of 30 days, failing which,
the respondents were at liberty to remove the same as obstruction.
The appellant, if so advised, may approach the appropriate
forum for the relief; but considering the factual circumstances, we direct
Page No.# 5/5
that no demolition be carried out within a period of 90(ninety) days, to
be counted from today; during which time, the appellant may either
seek the remedy in appropriate forum or demolish the part of the
property in question, failing which, the respondents will be at liberty to
continue with their removal of encroachment drive in the area.
We also make it clear that if the appellant moves the
appropriate forum for settlement of her grievances, the forum shall not
be guided by the observations made in the judgment delivered by the
learned Single Judge and shall decide the issue on its own merits, giving
full opportunity to the appellant to prove her case.
With the afore-noted observation and direction, the appeal
stands disposed off.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
