Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010112382025 2025:GAU-AS:9241 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3209/2025 MORJIANA SIKDAR W/O LT ABDUL KALAM AZAD R/O VILL KARAIKHAITI PO PATHIMARI DIST KAMRUP ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REP BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM REVENUE DEPTT DISPUR GUWAHATI 6 2:THE DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS ASSAM RUKMINI NAGAR GUWAHATI 32 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KAMRUP DIST KAMRUP ASSAM 4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER OF NAGARBERA REVENUE CIRCLE PO NAGARBERA DIST KAMRUP ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B RAHMAN, Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MS. G. HAZARIKA, SC, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPT BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 18.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. B Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Page No.# 2/3 Also heard Ms. N Bordoloi, learned standing counsel, Revenue & Disaster Management Department for respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Mr. N Goswami, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the demarcation sought by the petitioner has not been acted upon in violation of the Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012. 3. Mr. N Goswami, learned counsel, on instruction submits that though the name of the husband of the petitioner Abdul Kalam Azad is recorded over a plot of land measuring 2 kathas 10 lecha covered by Dag No.555 of KP Patta No.252 of village Nagarbera under Nagarbera Mouza in the district of Kamrup by virtue of purchase and his name was also mutated under an order dated 19.10.2022, however, after his death, the petitioner Morjiana Sikdar has not made any application for mutation over the land and in absence of her name being recorded in place of her husband, the authorities could not proceed with the application of demarcation. 4. It is further submitted by Mr. Goswami on instructions that once the petitioner files an application for mutation, same will be considered and decided within the specified time as mandated under the Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012 and the rules framed thereunder and the petitioner’s case for demarcation shall be considered after the said mutation. 5. It is further submitted by Mr. Goswami that the application be made through sewa setu app so that necessary action can be carried out in terms of the Act, 2012 and the rules framed thereunder. Page No.# 3/3 6. Mr. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of such instructions, his client shall file an application for mutation in the sewa setu app in terms of the Act 2012 and the rules framed thereunder and he may be allowed to withdraw this writ petition and to approach the authority. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands closed with a liberty to the petitioner to file an application for mutation in terms of the Act, 2012 and the rules framed thereunder and through the sewa setu portal/app and on such application being filed, the authorities shall consider such application and decide the same within the time specified under the Act, 2012 and the rules framed thereunder. 8. It is needless to say that the petitioner will be at liberty to file a fresh demarcation application once the mutation is carried out under the aforesaid Act and Rules. 9. This disposes the writ petition. 10. The instructions so received, is kept on record. JUDGE Comparing Assistant