MANJIT BAYAN AND 2 ORS v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
WP(C)/2067/2023 · 2025-07-27
N Unni Krishnan Nair
Writ Petition (Civil)body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 10868 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 10868 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010079282023
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2067/2023 MANJIT BAYAN AND 2 ORS S/O LATE SARBESWAR BAYAN, R/O VILL-MOIRAMARA, P.S.-HAULI, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781316 2: GANAJIT BAYAN S/O LATE SARBESWAR BAYAN R/O VILL-MOIRAMARA P.S.-HAULI DIST-BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781316 3: HARJIT BAYAN S/O LATE SARBESWAR BAYAN R/O VILL-MOIRAMARA P.S.-HAULI DIST-BARPETA ASSAM PIN-78131 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006 2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781301 3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER BARPETA REVENUE CIRCLE BARPETA
Page No.# 2/4 ASSAM PIN-781301 4:SMTI. RUPALI NATH W/O HITESH NATH R/O VILL-MOIRAMARA P.S.-HAULI DIST-BARPETA ASSAM PIN-78131 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T R SARMA, MR. A K ROY,MR. T K MISRA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE, MR S DAS (r-4),MR. K R BOROOAH (r-4),MR G J SAIKIA (r-4),GA, ASSAM
Page No.# 3/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
ORDER Date : 28.07.2025
None appears for the petitioner even on second call. 2. Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department, appears for Respondent no.1. and Mr. H. Sarma, learned Govt. Advocate, appears for the Respondent nos.2 & 3, as well as Mr. G. J. Saikia, learned counsel, has appeared for the Respondent no.4. 3. The petitioner in the present proceedings has presented a challenge to the proceedings initiated vide registration of Misc. Case.No.116/22-2023, and by the Circle Officer, Barpeta Circle and also to the impugned notice dated 27.03.2023, issued to the petitioner in the said proceedings. 4. From the materials brought on record, it is seen that the Respondent no.4, herein, had approached the Office of the Circle Officer, Barpeta Circle, by a application dated 13.03.2023. The said application is styled as an application for compromising between applicant and opposite party for sale and purchase of land. In the said application, the Respondent no.4, has contended that she and the petitioners are neighbours and the land of the petitioners is situated towards the eastern side of her land. 5. It is further projected that the petitioners had proposed to sell about 4 lechas of their land at an earlier point of time. However, they are presently demanding a higher rate for the land and disturbing the approach to her land. Basing on the said application, the Circle Officer registered Misc. Case.No.116/22-2023, and issued notice to the petitioner, herein, vide notice dated 13.03.2023. 6. A perusal of the grievance raised, by the Respondent no.4, in the application
Page No.# 4/4 dated 13.03.2023, would go to reveal that the same would not have mandated a registration of the Misc. Case.No.116/22-2023, by the petitioner inasmuch a dispute if any that can be culled out therefrom is of some verbal agreement for sale of land which was subsequently not performed by the petitioner. 7. The Respondent no.4 could have instituted a civil suit in the matter for establishing her right with regard to the sale of the land in question, by referring to the specific provisions of the law, if so applicable. However, this Court is of the considered view that the Circle Officer had no jurisdiction to entertain the said applicati-on so filed by the Respondent no.4, herein. 8. Accordingly, in view of the above conclusions, this Courts holds that the registration of the Misc.
Case.No.116/22-2023 having being so done without any jurisdiction, the same would be mandated to be interfered with. The proceedings in Misc. Case.No.116/22-2023, having been so held by this Court, to have been instituted without jurisdiction, the consequential notice dated 13.03.2023, also would not be sustainable and accordingly, the same also stands set aside. The parties are at liberty to initiate such proceedings as may be permissible under law for redressal of their respective grievances, if any. 9. With the above directions and observations, the present Writ Petition stands
disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant