Page No.# 1/4 vs The Silchar Municipal Board And 3 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 2282 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/4 vs The Silchar Municipal Board And 3 Ors on 24 January, 2025

                                                                           Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010278502024




                                                             2025:GAU-AS:811-DB

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

                               Case No. : WA/3/2025

            JHULAN DAS
            S/O LATE NIBARAN DAS,
            RESIDENT OF NATIONAL HIGHWAY SILCHAR WARD NO.17,
            PARGONABARAKPAR SILCHAR, PO AND PS SILCHAR,
            DIST CACHAR, ASSAM

            VERSUS

            1.THE SILCHAR MUNICIPAL BOARD AND 3 ORS
            REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
            SILCHAR, CACHAR, ASSAM

            2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER, CACHAR,
            SILCHAR ASSAM 788001

            3:THE SUB REGISTRAR
             OFFICE OF THE SENIOR SUB REGISTRAR RRJ2 AND 4WF COURT ROAD
            TARAPUR SILCHAR ASSAM 788001

            4:ANJAN CHAKRABORTY
             S/O LATE UPENDRA KUMAR CHAKRABORTY
             RESIDENT OF VIDYASAGAR SARANI PARGONA
             BARAKPAR SILCHAR
            PO AND PS SILCHAR DIST CACHAR
            ASSAM 788005.
            PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 370/1
             R.N GUHA ROAD KOLKATA 700074 WEST BENGAL

For the Appellant         : Mr. A.B. Dey, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s)      : Ms. S. Sarma, Govt. Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3.

Page No.# 2/4

-B E F O R E -

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

24.01.2025 (Vijay Bishnoi, CJ)

The instant writ appeal is preferred on behalf of the appellant being aggrieved with the judgment and order dated 20.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.6522/2023, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed on behalf of the respondent No.4 herein and set aside the communications dated 02.02.2022 as well as 03.02.2022, issued by the Executive Officer of the Silchar Municipal Board as well as by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Cachar respectively.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.4 herein has approached the Writ Court with a grievance that the Executive Officer, Silchar Municipal Board, Cachar has sent a communication dated 02.02.2022 to the Senior Sub-Registrar, Silchar and directed it to keep in abeyance the land sale permission dated 26.10.2021 issued in favour of the respondent No.4 herein. He has also challenged the communication dated 03.02.2022 sent by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Cachar, Silchar to the Senior Sub-Registrar, opining that in view of the pendency of a civil suit (Title Suit) between the appellant and the respondent No.4 herein, the No Objection Certificate (NOC) issued from the Office for granting sale permission be kept in abeyance until further order(s).

3. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, has concluded that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have no lawful authority Page No.# 3/4

to issue such type of directions to the Senior Sub-Registrar. The learned Single Judge has taken note of the fact that a suit for specific performance of contract filed by the appellant against the respondent No.4 herein is pending consideration before the Civil Court in which the Civil Court has refused to grant any injunction.

4. Mr. A.B. Dey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that, as a matter of fact, the Civil Court has not refused to grant any interim direction to the appellant in the Civil Suit preferred by the appellant for specific performance of contract but the ad interim injunction application has not adjudicated till date.

5. Be that as it may, the fact remains that in the Civil Suit for specific performance of contract filed on behalf of the appellant, the Civil Court has not granted any injunction till date in favour of the appellant.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to satisfy us that the respondent Nos.1 and 2, namely, the Executive Commissioner, Silchar Municipal Board, Cachar as well as the Additional District Commissioner, Silchar has any lawful authority to issue such type of direction to the Senior Sub-Registrar restraining him from registering a document for registration of immovable property by any person.

7. In such circumstances, we find no case for interference. Apart from that the learned Single Judge has also observed that any transfer of immovable property involved in the dispute by the respondent No.4 herein would remain subject to Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and therefore, no further observation is required to be passed in this writ appeal.

Page No.# 4/4

8. In view of the above discussion, this writ appeal stands dismissed.

              JUDGE                               CHIEF JUSTICE




Comparing Assistant