Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 22 October, 2025

                                                             Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010244492018




                                                       2025:GAU-AS:14028

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

                        Case No. : WP(C)/7631/2018

         RAKESH KUMAR SURANA
         S/O SURAJMAL SURANA
         R/O 12, M.S. ROAD,
         FANCY BAZAR,
         GUWAHATI -01.



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
         REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, GOVT. OF ASSAM,
         DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT, DISPUR,
         GUWAHATI -6.

         2:THE JOINT SECRETARY

          DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI-6.

         3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

          KAMRUP (METRO)
          PANBAZAR
          GUWAHATI -1.

         4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER

          DISPUR
          REVENUE CIRCLE

          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI -6
                                                                                    Page No.# 2/6



Advocate for the petitioner        : Shri R Chakravorty, Advocate

Advocates for the respondents     : Shri H Sharma, Addl. Sr. GA, Assam

Ms. P.R Mahanta, SC-, Revenue

Date of hearing : 22.10.2025 Date of judgment : 22.10.2025

JUDGMENT & ORDER

1. The instant application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been instituted with the following relief :

"In the premises as aforesaid, it is therefore prayed that your Lordships may be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records, issue a Rule; calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why:

A writ in the nature of Mandamus shall not be issued directing the respondents to dispose of application dated 20.12.2016 (ΑΝNEXURE- 13) in light of office letter dated 30.8.2017 (ANNEXURE-14); issued by respondent No. 2 in a time bound manner.

A writ in the nature of Mandamus shall not be issued thereby directing the respondents to pass necessary orders to correct revenue records declassifying land under Dag Nos. 2874 & 2890 under Myadi Patta No. 298, under village Betkuchi, Mouza Beltola as "Government Land" and to include the same in the Jamabandi of revenue village Betkuchi showing the name of late Siri devi Surana.

And/or as to why other appropriate Writ, Order or Directions shall not be issued giving adequate relief(s) to the Writ Petitioner.

Upon perusal of the records and the cause or causes as may be shown by the Page No.# 3/6

respondents and after hearing the parties Your Lordships may be pleased to make the rule absolute and/or may be pleased to pass any such further order(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper."

2. As per the facts projected, one Shri Jadu Nath Bora was the owner of a plot of land measuring about 81 bighas and out of the said plot and he had sold a plot measuring 2 bighas covered by Dag No. 1236 of Nisfkhiraj patta No. 1 of revenue village - Betkuchi under Mouza - Beltola, Guwahati to one Shri Debo Ram Mikir vide registered deed No. 3624 of 1971. Subsequently, the same Shri Debo Ram Mikir had sold the aforesaid land to the mother of the petitioner Sridevi Surana vide registered deed No. 8859 of 1973. The land was accordingly mutated and in the meantime, the mother of the petitioner has passed away. The petitioner claims to be possessing the land and running his business premises from the said land. In the year 2009-2010, there was a re-settlement operation in which the land in question were declared to be khas land. It appears that in the said re-settlement, the land in question covered by dag No. 1236 was bifurcated into 4 Dags numbered 2874, 2890, 2889 and 2888 out of which the first two Dags constitute the land under the possession of the petitioner. It transpires that Ceiling Case No. 225 was instituted in the year 1980-81 and the said plot was found to be surplus. Of that premises, the cause of action has arisen.

3. I have heard Shri R Chakravorty, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri H Sharma, learned Additional Sr. Government Advocate and Ms. P.R Mahanta, learned Standing counsel, Revenue Department.

4. Shri R Chakravorty, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the premises on which the impugned classification of the land is done is erroneous. He has submitted that at no point of time, the plot of land which is covered by Dag No. 1236 was declared to be surplus under the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Page No.# 4/6

Act, 1956 (hereinafter, the Ceiling Act). He has submitted that in the present proceedings, two numbers of affidavits have been filed by the concerned Circle Officer and in both the affidavits, it has categorically been stated that the concerned records are not available for verification. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 12.12.2013 passed by the Circle Officer in which it has been narrated that the aspect whether the land in question was part of the ceiling surplus land is not clear. Attention of this Court has also been drawn to the order dated 17.10.2023 passed in this proceeding as per which a direction was given to file an additional affidavit and in the said additional affidavit filed, the aspect could not be clarified by the respondent authorities.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before this Court, a certified copy of the Jamabandi of the land in question and has submitted that there is no narration with regard to the land under Dag No. 1236 and rather there is mention of various land including land under Dag No. 1263. He, accordingly, submits that the present is a fit case for interference and the Writ Petition is liable to be allowed.

6. Shri H Sharma, learned State counsel has fairly submitted that though two affidavits have been filed respectively on 02.02.2024 and 06.02.2025 by the concerned Circle Officer, there is no clarity on the issue as the concerned records were not readily available in the office. He has, however, produced before this Court the original records which have been retrieved and the same contains a note dated 19.07.1986 as per which, the land in question was to be excluded from the concerned Ceiling case.

7. Ms. P.R Mahanta, learned Standing counsel, Revenue Department has endorsed the submission of the Ld. State counsel.

8. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials placed before Page No.# 5/6

this Court including the original records produced by the Ld. State counsel have been carefully perused. This Court has also looked into the original certified copy of the Jamabandi placed before the learned counsel for the petitioner.

9. After the enactment of the Act of 1956 which has application in the area concerned, a ceiling has been imposed regarding the land which can be held. Under Section 5 of the said Act, a return is required to be filed and the aspect of selecting the plot of land to be covered under the Act is also left with the affected party. For ready reference, Section 5 of the Act of 1956 is extracted herein below :

"Submission of return by person holding land in excess of the ceiling

Any person who, on the date of commencement of this Act, holds as owner or tenant lands which in the aggregate, exceed the limit fixed under Section 4 above, shall within the prescribed period, submit to the Collector, a return giving the particulars of all his lands in the prescribed form and stating therein his selection of plot or plots of land (not exceeding in the aggregate the fixed under Section 4 above) which he desires to retain under the provision of this Act."

10. The said exercise in this case was to be performed by the original vendor namely Shri Jadu Nath Bora. As mentioned above, the said Shri Jadu Nath Bora had sold the plot of land in question to one Shri Debo Ram Mikir whereafter, the mother of the petitioner (since deceased) had purchased the land and all these transactions were done by registered deeds which are not the subject matter of any challenge.

11. The question therefore would arise as to whether the land in question comes under the Ceiling Case 2025 which was instituted in the year 1980-81. In both the affidavits filed by the Circle Officer mentioned above, there is no clarity in the matter and as indicated above, one of the affidavits has been filed pursuant to a direction of Page No.# 6/6

this Court dated 17.10.2023. The original records placed before this Court would however indicate that there is a note dated 19.07.1986 that the present plot of land is to be excluded from the Ceiling case. The aforesaid note gets fortified by the Jamabandi of the land in question, the certified copy of which has been placed before this Court and on perusal of the same, this Court does not find any narration with regard to the land under Dag No. 1236. As noted above, there is a mention of Dag No. 1263 which is a different Dag.

12. Situated thus, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has been able to make out a case warranting interference. Accordingly, a direction is issued to consider and application dated 20.12.2016 of the petitioner which was submitted to the respondent No. 2 and the decisions to be taken in the said case is to be done in sync with the observations and directions made in the present order.

13. Writ petition, accordingly, stands allowed.

14. The original records are returned back to the learned State counsel.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant