Motilal Sarma vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 3776 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Motilal Sarma vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 5 March, 2025

                                                                   Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010137472023




                                                            undefined

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

                          Case No. : WP(C)/3748/2023

         MOTILAL SARMA
         S/O LATE SIVA LAL SARMA, R/O VILL-LANGKONA, P.O. AND P.S.-BOKO,
         DIST-KAMRUP, ASSAM



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
         GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-
         6

         2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
          KAMRUP
          P.O.-AMINGAON
          DIST-KAMRUP (ASSAM)
          PIN-781031

         3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
          BOKO REVENUE CIRCLE
          P.O.-BOKO
          DIST-KAMRUP
         ASSAM
          PIN-781123

         4:DILIP KUMAR RABHA
          S/O SRI MOBIN RABHA
          R/O VILL-KENDUGURI
          P.O. AND P.S.-BOKO
          DIST-KAMRUP
         ASSAM
          PIN NO. 78112
                                                                                Page No.# 2/3

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. P P DAS, MR. SURAJIT DAS

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE, MR. B C KALITA (R4),MR A K BHARALI
(R4),GA, ASSAM




                                          BEFORE
                     THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
                                      ORDER

05.03.2025

1. Heard Mr. S Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A Bhattacharyya, learned standing counsel for the Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Assam appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. H Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Though, Mr. AK Bharali, learned counsel had earlier appeared for the respondent No. 4, none appears for the respondent No. 4, when the matter is called today.

2. Assailing a notice dated 25.01.2021 issued by the respondent No. 3 to the petitioner as well as to the respondent No. 4 and a notice dated 30.01.2021 directing the Officer-in-Charge, Boko Police Station instructing him to hand over possession of the plot of land (subject land) from the petitioner to the respondent No. 4, instant writ petition is filed.

3. The respondent State has filed an affidavit. From the aforesaid affidavit, it is seen that the petitioner preferred a title suit, which was registered as TS No. 378/2014 before the learned Munsiff, Kamrup at Amingaon. By judgment and order dated 30.09.2009, the learned Trial Court dismissed the aforesaid suit and against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 30.09.2009, the petitioner preferred title appeal, which was numbered and registered as TA No. 20/2022 and same is pending adjudication at present before the court of learned Civil Judge, Kamrup at Amingaon.

4. Though affidavit has been filed and statement has been made that the Page No.# 3/3

authorities are duty bound to honour the order of the court and will follow the direction passed in the aforesaid proceeding, however, nothing is disclosed as to under what authority they have issued the impugned notice, more particularly, referring to the decision of the learned trial court.

5. In the considered opinion of this court, the respondent No. 3, Circle Officer in the given facts of the present case had exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing the notice inasmuch as even if there is a decree of eviction of the petitioner from the suit land it will be the executing court not the Circle Officer, who can issue such a notice.

6. In the considered opinion of this court, such notice has been issued either for reason other than bona-fide or this officer, who issued such notice is lacking the fundamental knowledge and jurisdiction vested upon the Circle Officer.

7. This court is of the opinion that such kind of executive orders issued by revenue authorities out reaching its power should be brought to the notice of the highest administrative authority of the State. Accordingly, a copy of this order be forwarded to the Chief Secretary, State of Assam for his doing the needful.

8. The petitioner has taken a specific stand at paragraph 11 that the Circle Officer, Boko Revenue Circle without any authority and order from the learned court of Munsiff forcefully had evicted the petitioner from the Schedule B Land and handed over the possession to the respondent No. 4. However, the respondent authorities has not specifically admitted or denied such statement and has not made its stand clarified in the affidavit. Accordingly, a specific reply shall be made to the statement made in the paragraph 11, more particularly, in the context that the petitioner has prayed for restoration of possession illegally taken at the behest of the respondent No. 3, Circle Officer.

9. List this matter on 01.04.2025 as part-heard.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant