Gauhati High Court
Haresh Ali vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 22 September, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010216042025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5649/2025
HARESH ALI
S/O LT. AHMMAD ALI, RESIDENT OF PUB CHANDMARI, WARD NO 4, P.O-
KHELMATI, P.S- NORTH LAKHIMPUR, DISTRICT- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM,
PIN- 787001
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
DISPUR, GHY- 06
2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GHY- 06
3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM
PIN- 787001
4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
NORTH LAKHIMPUR REVENUE CIRCLE
DISTRICT- LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM
PIN- 78700
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M U MONDAL, S S AHMED,A A AHMED,MR A ALIM
SK,MR K ISLAM
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, REVENUE
Page No.# 2/4
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
ORDER
22-09-2025
Heard Shri M. U. Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri
R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department and Shri S. S. Roy,
learned State Counsel.
Considering the challenge made and the facts and circumstances involved,
the present writ petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage.
As per the facts projected, the petitioners had purchased the possessory
right of a plot of land measuring 1 Katha in the year 1999 covered by No. 2
Ekchonia patta, Dag No. 984, Mouza-Lakhimpur under North Lakhimpur
Revenue Circle. The said aspect has also been recognized in a certificate issued
by the Circle Officer on 20.08.2014 where there is a clear reflection of the Dag
No. of the land as 984. The grievance of the petitioner is against an order dated
01.09.2025 issued by the Circle Officer directing the petitioner to vacate from
the land in the Schedule which has been described to be covered by Dag Nos.
705 and 986.
Shri Mondal, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
said notice is bad in law as the same has not been issued in strict compliance of
Rule 18 (2) of the Rules under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886.
He has submitted that the Circle Office is not vested with jurisdiction to issue
such notice. He further submits that the petitioner is possessing land under Dag
No. 984 and the notice issued to him mentions another dag and he apprehends
Page No.# 3/4
that without there being a clear process of demarcation, the petitioner would be
unnecessarily harassed. The counsel has however clarified that both in the
synopsis and in the paragraph 2 of the pleadings, the Dag number has been
wrongly written as 986 which should be 984.
Shri Borpujari, the learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department has
submitted that the first contention that the Circle Officer does not have the
jurisdiction is unsustainable in law and the said aspect was explained by this
Court in the judgment dated 26.09.2019 passed in a batch of writ petition the
lead case being WP(C)/6158/2019 ( Taher Ali Vs State of Assam). He has
also submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had
submitted representation in spite of the fact that the impugned notice dated
01.09.2025 had given the petitioner an opportunity to file his response, if any.
As regards the arguments advanced on the aspect of jurisdiction of the
Circle Officer, this Court has noted that the aforesaid aspect has already been
clarified in the judgment dated 26.09.2019 in the Case of Taher Ali (supra).
Moreover, under Rule 18, though the power of ejectment has been conferred on
the Deputy Commissioner, it may not be construed that such notice cannot be
issued by the Circle Officer, who is an Officer under the Office of the Deputy
Commissioner (presently District Commissioner).
This Court has also noticed that the principal ground of challenge is that the
petitioner claims to be occupying land under Dag No. 984 whereas the notice
has mentioned the Dag Numbers as 705 and 986. The apprehension of the
petitioner is that in the guise of the notice, his possession over Dag No. 984
would also be disturbed.
Page No.# 4/4
Shri Borpujari, the learned Standing Counsel has however submitted that
the eviction exercise would be confined only to the land under the Dag nos.
mentioned in the said notice.
Shri S. S. Roy, the learned State Counsel has endorsed the submissions of
Shri Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel.
Considering the above, this Court is of the opinion that while the authorities
would not be under any restriction to go ahead with the process initiated vide
the notice dated 01.09.2025 under Rule 18 (2) of the Rules, the same has to be
confined only to the land mentioned in the Schedule to the said notice. It is also
made clear that if the petitioner is found to be encroaching upon any land of the
Dag numbers mentioned in the notice, appropriate action in accordance with
law may be taken.
Writ petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
