Page No.# 1/8 vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors
2026 Latest Caselaw 1428 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/8 vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 19 February, 2026

Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi

                                                           Page No.# 1/8

GAHC010120612012




                                                     2025:GAU-AS:4094

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

                        Case No. : WP(C)/1452/2012

         SMT. LAXMI MALAKAR and 4 ORS.
         W/O LT. KRISHNA MALAKAR

         2: SUBAL MALAKAR
          S/O LT. KRISHNA MALAKAR

         3: SWAPAN MALAKAR
          S/O LT. KRISHNA MALAKAR
         ALL ARE THE R/O VILL. GOLAHATIA BASTI
          PO/PS. HOJAI
          DIST. NAGAON
         ASSAM
          PIN-782435

         4: MAYA MALAKAR

          D/O LT. KRISHNA MALAKAR
          W/O MUKUL MALAKAR
          R/O SIB BARI
          PO/PS. HOJAI
          DIST. NAGAON
          ASSAM
          PIN-782435

         5: KUMTAI MALAKA

          D/O LT. KRISHNA MALAKAR
          W/O BABUL DAS
          R/O VILL. UTTAR BIDYA NAGAR
          PO/PS. HOJAI
          DIST. NAGAON
          ASSAM
          PIN-78243
                                                    Page No.# 2/8

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, LAND AND
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 6.

2:THE DY. COMMISSIONER

NAGAON
PO
PS/DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM

3:BIJOY MALAKAR

S/O LT. NRIPENDRA MALAKAR

4:NAKUL MALAKAR

S/O LT. NRIPENDRA MALAKAR
BOTH ARE THE R/O VILL. PASCHIM NANDALALPUR
PO. DIMRUPAR
P.S. HOJAI
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN-782435

5:ON THE DEATH OF PRABATH CH. MALAKAR
 HIS LEGAL HEIRS
 S/O LT. PADMOLOCHAN MALAKAR
 R/O VILL. DIMRUPAR
 PO. DIMRUPAR
 P.S. HOJAI
 DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
 PIN-782435

5.1:PRAFULLA MALAKAR

S/O LATE PRABATH CHANDRA MALAKAR
VILLAGE - DIMRUPAR
P.O. DIMRUPAR
P.S. HOJAI
DISTRICT - HOJAI
ASSAM
PIN - 782435

5.2:BHARATI MALAKAR
                                                                                         Page No.# 3/8


            D/O LATE PRABATH CHANDRA MALAKAR
            VILLAGE -DIMRUPAR
            P.O. - DIMRUPAR
            P.S. - HOJAI
            DISTRICT - HOJAI
            ASSAM
            pin - 78243

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.A H M R CHOUDHURY, MS D DUTTA,MR. H A
LASKAR,MR. S B LASKAR,MR.H R A CHOUDHURY

Advocate for the Respondent : MRS. N BORDOLOI, MS N BORDOLOI, S C REVENUE

DEPT.,FOR CAVEATOR,MR.ALHAJJ INAM UDDIN,MD.GIASH UDDIN,GA, ASSAM

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

Advocate for the petitioners : Shri H.A. Laskar, Advocate.

Advocates for the respondents : Shri J. Handique, G.A., Assam, Shri R. Borpujari, S.C., Revenue Deptt., Shri G. Uddin, Advocate; R/ 3 & 4.

   Date on which judgment is         :       NA
   Reserved.


   Date of pronouncement of          :       19.02.2026.
   Judgment.


   Whether the pronouncement :               NA.
   is of the operative part of the
   judgment?


   Whether the full judgment             :    Yes.
   has been pronounced?
                                                                                  Page No.# 4/8




                             JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral)

The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following relief:

"Under the circumstances, it is prayed that your Lordship's may be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records, issue Rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a writ of Certiorari and/or Mandamus shall not be issued quashing and setting aside the (I) judgment and order dated 5-3-2012 passed in 3RA (Review) of 2012 by the Assam Revenue Board and (II) judgment and order dated 12-10-2011 passed in Revenue Appeal No.8 RA(N)/2011 by the Assam Revenue Board and/or the order dated 28- 09-2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in N R K Case No. 49 of 2006- 07 shall not be upheld and/or as to why a further direction shall not be issued to stay the operation of impugned judgment and order dated 12-10-2011 passed in Revenue Appeal No. 8 RA(N)/2011 and/or as to why any other order or direction shall not be issued giving full and complete relief to the petitioners and after hearing the parties and on perusal of records be pleased to make the Rule absolute giving full and complete relief to the petitioners and/or pass such further or other order or orders as your Lordships may deem fit and proper.

-AND-

Pending disposal of this petition the further operation of the impugned judgment and order dated 12.10.2011 passed by the Assam Board of Revenue at Guwahati may kindly be stayed."

Page No.# 5/8

2. As per the facts projected, the petitioners are the co-pattadars in respect of a plot of land in the district of Nagaon. However, in the year 1996-97, the names of the private respondent nos. 3 and 4 were mutated. The said mutation order was the subject matter of challenge in NRK Case No. 49/2006-07 and vide an order dated 28.09.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner (ADC), Nagaon, the said mutation in favour of the respondent nos. 3 and 4 was cancelled. The aforesaid order of the learned ADC, Nagaon, was the subject matter of challenge in Revenue Appeal No. 8 RA(N)/2011 instituted in the learned Assam Board of Revenue (ABR). The learned ABR, vide order dated 12.10.2011 had allowed the appeal.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that in spite of they being co-pattadars, they were not made parties in the revenue appeal for which, they have preferred a review petition, being Case No. 3 RA (N) (RVW)/2012 which was also dismissed by the learned ABR vide order dated 05.03.2012. It is these 2 orders passed by the learned ABR which are the subject matters of challenge in the present writ petition.

4. I have heard Shri H.A. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri J. Handique, learned State Counsel, Assam. I have also heard Shri R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department as well as Shri Gias Uddin, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4.

5. Shri Laskar, learned counsel has submitted that the petitioners are co-pattadars in respect of the land in question and therefore, the appeal filed in the learned ABR could not have been done without making the petitioners party respondents. He has submitted that in the adjudication process, the petitioners were not given opportunity to contest the outcome which has affected their rights. The learned counsel has also submitted that the subsequent order dated 05.03.2012 passed by the learned ABR is not sustainable as the learned Board was not in a position to entertain the review Page No.# 6/8

petition. He accordingly submits that the impugned orders be interfered with and the writ petition be allowed.

6. Per contra, Shri Uddin, learned counsel for the private respondent nos. 3 and 4 has strenuously opposed the writ petition and has submitted that the projection made on behalf of the petitioners is incorrect, both on facts as well as on law. It is submitted that the initial order passed on 28.09.2010 by the learned ADC, Nagaon was in a case instituted by one Shri Prabhat Chandra Malakar which would appear from the order itself. By referring to the said order, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 has submitted that the present writ petitioners were not connected with the said proceedings and therefore, not parties. He has submitted that since the respondent nos.3 and 4 were aggrieved by cancellation of mutation vide the order dated 28.09.2010 in an appeal filed by one Shri Prabhat Chandra Malakar, the subsequent appeal in the learned ABR was preferred by the respondent nos. 3 and 4 against the said Prabhat Chandra Malakar and there was no legal requirement at all to implead any other party. He has submitted that the learned ABR after due consideration of the matter and after hearing the parties, had allowed the appeal. He has submitted that in the said adjudication process, the present petitioners could not claim any role. He has also supported the subsequent order dated 05.03.2012 whereby, the learned ABR had dismissed the review petition.

7. Both Shri Handique, learned State Counsel and Shri Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel have supported the orders dated 12.10.2011 and 05.03.2012.

8. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials on record carefully examined.

9. While, as per the projection made on behalf of the petitioners, they were left Page No.# 7/8

out in an adjudication process concerning their rights, it is the case of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 that there was no requirement to implead the petitioners as parties in the appeal before the learned ABR. To examine the issue, this Court has carefully looked into the proceedings instituted before the learned ADC, Nagaon which culminated in the order dated 28.09.2010 whereby, the mutation in favour of the respondent nos. 3 and 4 was cancelled.

10. A careful perusal of the order dated 28.09.2010 would, however, reveal that the proceeding was instituted by one Prabhat Chandra Malakar and the present writ petitioners were nowhere connected in the said proceedings. Since the order dated 28.09.2010 was passed against the respondent nos. 3 and 4, the law provides them a remedy to prefer review before the learned ABR which was accordingly done. As narrated above, the learned ABR had decided the appeal in favour of the respondent nos. 3 and 4. It was thereafter that the review application was filed by the present petitioners which was also dismissed by the learned ABR vide order dated 05.03.2012. The contention of the writ petitioners is that they are co-pattadars. However, considering that the order which was the subject matter of challenge in appeal before the learned ABR was passed in a proceeding whereby, the present petitioners were not parties, no fault can be attributed to the respondent nos. 3 and 4 for not arraying the writ petitioners as parties. This Court is also of the view that there is no legal obligation on the part of the respondent nos. 3 and 4 to array the writ petitioners as parties in the appeal. The learned ABR vide order dated 12.10.2011 after application of mind and taking into consideration the relevant factors had passed the order dated 12.10.2011. This Court is of the view that in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction, the scope of interference would confine only to the decision making process and in this connection, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that the relevant factors have been taken into consideration.

Page No.# 8/8

11. In view of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the case projected by the petitioners and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

12. The petitioners would, however, be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum in case they are able to establish any right in the concerned plot of land.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant