Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs Hiralal Baxi And 12 Ors on 13 February, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010090802019
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/13/2022
SRI SRI BIJOY KRISNA SADAN ASHRAM A RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE
TRUST, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT VILLAGE- KUMRAKHLI NEAR KOLKATA,
P.O. NARENDRAPUR, DISTRICT-24 PARGANAS, WEST BENGAL, HAVING
ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT DURGANAGAR, DIST.- KARIMGANJ, PIN- 788719,
KARIMGANJ, ASSAM, REP. BY SRI AMAL KANTI RAHA, AGED ABOUT 81
YEARS, A TRUSTEE FOR ASSAM ZONE OF SRI SRI BIJOY KRISHNA
SADHAN ASHRAMA, R/O- OF KAMAKHYA COLONY, GUWAHATI, PIN-
781010.
VERSUS
1: HIRALAL BAXI AND 12 ORS
S/O- LATE BHANWARLAL BAXI, R/O- KARIMGANJ TOWN,
WARD NO. 21, P.O. AND DIST.- KARIMGANJ, PIN- 788710, ASSAM.
2:SURENDRA KUMAR BAXI
S/O- LATE BHANWARLAL BAXI R/O- KARIMGANJ TOWN
WARD NO. 21 P.O. AND DIST.- KARIMGANJ PIN- 788710 ASSAM.
3:SHANTI DEVI BAXI
W/O- HIRALAL BAXI R/O- KARIMGANJ TOWN
WARD NO. 21 P.O. AND DIST.- KARIMGANJ PIN- 788710 ASSAM.
4:SOBHA DEVI BAXI
W/O- SURENDRA KUMAR BAXI R/O- KARIMGANJ TOWN
WARD NO. 21 P.O. AND DIST.- KARIMGANJ PIN- 788710 ASSAM.
5:KESHRI CHAND BHURA
S/O- DIP CHAND BHURA R/O- KARIMGANJ TOWN
WARD NO. 21 P.O. AND DIST.- KARIMGANJ PIN- 788710 ASSAM.
6:RAJENDRA KUMAR BHURA
S/O- KISHAN LAL BHURA R/O- KARIMGANJ TOWN
WARD NO. 21 P.O. AND DIST.- KARIMGANJ PIN- 788710 ASSAM.
Page No.# 2/5
7:SANDEEP KUMAR BHURA
S/O- KESHRI CHAND BHURA R/O- KARIMGANJ TOWN
WARD NO. 21 P.O. AND DIST.- KARIMGANJ PIN- 788710 ASSAM.
8:SANJAY KUMAR BHURA
S/O- KESHRI CHAND BHURA R/O- KARIMGANJ TOWN
WARD NO. 21 P.O. AND DIST.- KARIMGANJ PIN- 788710 ASSAM.
9:STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY ITS SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
REVENUE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006.
10:ASSAM BOARD OF REVENUE
PANBAZAR GUWAHATI- 781001.
11:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KARIMGANJ PIN- 788710 DIST.- KARIMGANJ ASSAM.
12:THE SETTLEMENT OFFICER
KARIMGANJ PIN- 788710 DIST.- KARIMGANJ ASSAM.
13:DURGA DAS SARMA
S/O- BIPIN BEHARI SARMA R/O- R.K. MISSION ROAD
KARIMGANJ PIN- 788710 DIST.- KARIMGANJ ASSAM
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. P.K. Kalita, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. K. Talkdar, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. H.K. Sarma,
Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 8.
: Ms. N. Bordoloi, Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for
respondent Nos.9 & 10.
: Ms. S. Sarma, Government Advocate, Assam for respondent Nos.11 &
-B E F O R E -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
13.02.2025
(Vijay Bishnoi, CJ)
On 05.11.2024, Mr. P.K. Kalita, learned senior counsel for the appellant
prayed for 4(four) weeks time to move appropriate application to bring on
record the legal representatives of the respondent No.1, who expired on
20.04.2022.
Page No.# 3/5
Today, Mr. Kalita, learned senior counsel for the appellant has
submitted that the respondent No.1 left behind only one legal heir, i.e. his wife,
and she has already been impleaded as respondent No.3 in the writ appeal. It is
submitted that since the sole legal representative of the respondent No.1 is
already arrayed as a respondent (respondent No.3) in this writ appeal, there is
no need to bring her on record as the legal representative of the respondent
No.1.
Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondent Nos.1 to 8 is also in agreement that the respondent No.1, who
expired on 20.04.2022, left behind only one legal representative, i.e. his wife,
who has already been arrayed as a respondent in this writ appeal, hence, there
is no need to bring the legal representative of the respondent No.1 on record.
This writ appeal is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved with the
order dated 12.11.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C)
No.4463/2010.
The respondent Nos.1 to 8, out of whom the respondent No.1 has
expired, approached the Writ Court being aggrieved with the judgment & order
dated 08.04.2010 passed by the Assam Board of Revenue in Appeal
No.130RA(KJ)/2008. The Assam Board of Revenue, vide judgment & order
dated 08.04.2010, had set aside the order(s) passed by the Settlement Officer,
Karimganj whereby mutation was allowed in favour of the respondent Nos.1 to
8.
The learned Single Judge, having taken into consideration the fact that
the Settlement Officer, Karimganj allowed the mutation in favour of the
respondent Nos.1 to 8 on the basis of a decree dated 30.04.1979 passed by the
Munsiff, Karimganj in Title Suit No.24/1977, has observed that when the
Page No.# 4/5
Settlement Officer had allowed the mutation in favour of the respondent Nos.1
to 8 on the basis of a decree dated 30.04.1979 passed by the Civil Court, i.e.
the Munsiff, Karimganj, in Title Suit No.24/1977, the Revenue Board has gone
beyond the decree of the Civil Court and virtually nullified the order of the Civil
Court; whereas it is settled proposition of law that in a revenue appeal, the
Assam Board of Revenue cannot decide the title and certainly cannot go beyond
the decree of the Civil Court. While observing this, the learned Single Judge has
set aside the judgment & order dated 08.04.2010 passed by the Assam Board of
Revenue and affirmed the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Karimganj.
Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after
going through the material available on record, we are of the view that the
learned Single Judge has rightly interfered with the order of the Board of
Revenue, because the Assam Board of Revenue has gone beyond the decree of
the Civil Court, which is certainly not permissible under the law.
It is informed by Mr. Kalita, learned senior counsel for the appellant
that the appellant had questioned the validity of the decree dated 30.04.1979
passed in Title Suit No.24/1977 by the Munsiff, Karimganj, in Title Suit
No.85/2010 claiming that the decree dated 30.04.1979 is a fraudulent decree. It
is submitted that the Title Suit No.85/2010 instituted in the Court of the Munsiff
at Karimganj was dismissed on 29.03.2018, against which the appellant has
preferred Title Appeal No.21/2018 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Karimganj and
the same is pending consideration, wherein the Appellate Court has stayed the
effect and operation of the impugned judgment & decree dated 29.03.2018
passed in Title Suit No.85/2010.
Mr. Kalita, learned senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that
the appellant apprehends that the observations made in the impugned
Page No.# 5/5
judgment passed by the learned Single Judge may affect the merits of the Title
Appeal No.21/2018 pending in the Court of the Civil Judge, Karimganj.
Taking care of the apprehension of the learned senior counsel for the
appellant, we propose to make it clear that the Civil Judge, Karimganj shall
consider and decide the Title Appeal No.21/2018 on its own merit, without
being influenced by any observations made by the learned Single Judge in the
impugned judgment.
Mr. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent
Nos.1 to 8 has also agreed to the above proposition.
In such circumstances, the writ appeal is disposed of with the
observation that the Civil Judge, Karimganj shall decide the Title Appeal
No.21/2018 on its own merit, without being influenced by any observations
made by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment.
With these observations, the writ appeal stands disposed of.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
