Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010115392022 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4095/2022 ON THE DEATH OF GIRINDRA MAZUMDAR @ GIRINDRA KUMAR MAZUMDAR ,HIS LEGAL HEIRS 1.1) SMTI. ARATI MAJUMDAR, 78 YEARS, W/O-LT. GIRINDRA MAZUMDAR @ GIRINDRA KUMAR MAZUMDAR 1.2: SRI JAGAL MAJUMDAR S/O- LT. GIRINDRA MAZUMDAR @GIRINDRA KUMAR MAZUMDAR 1.3: SRI SAJAL MAJUMDAR S/O- LT. GIRINDRA MAZUMDAR @GIRINDRA KUMAR MAZUMDAR 1.4: SRI MILAN MAJUMDAR S/O- LT. GIRINDRA MAZUMDAR @GIRINDRA KUMAR MAZUMDAR 2: NAYAN BARAN MAZUMDAR S/O- SRI GIRINDRA MAZUMDAR BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- RENG RENG JHARONI UTTAR BORBIL MOUZA- PHULONI P.O.- UTTAR BORBIL P.S.- HOWRAGHAT DIST.- EAST KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN- 782881 VERSUS THE KARBI ANGLONG AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL AND 3 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DIPHU, DISTRICT- EAST KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM, PIN- 782460. Page No.# 2/4 2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER EAST KARBI ANGLONG DISTRICT DIPHU ASSAM PIN- 782460. 3:THE ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT OFFICER-CUM-ASSTT. REVENUE OFFICER PHULONI REVENUE CIRCLE P.O. PHULONI DISTRICT- EAST KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN- 782441. 4:GANESH TERON S/O- LONGKI TERON VILLAGE- JARABASA P.O. JARABASA P.S.- HOWRAGHAT DISTRICT- EAST KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN- 782881 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S CHAUHAN, MR. P MAZUMDER,MR. A R SHOME Advocate for the Respondent : SC, K A A C, MR. B BORGOHAIN(R-4),MR B SAIKIA(R-4),MS. S G BARUAH (R-4),N N HUSSAIN (R-4),MR N RAY (R-4),MR. D J DAS (R-4),MR S DIFUSA (R- 4),MR. S. RONGPI(R-4),MR. B BORGOHAIN (R-4),MR B SAIKIA(R-4),MS. S G BARUAH(R-4) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 20-08-2025 Heard Shri S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri J. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, KAAC. Ms. S. G. Baruah, learned counsel is present for the respondent no. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the present petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. Page No.# 3/4 As per the facts projected, the petitioners are residing on a plot of land in part of Dag No. 1002 measuring 2 Bigha, 3 Katha and 19 Lechas out to total land of 25 Bigha 15 Lechas in village Uttar Borbil, Mouza & Revenue Circle- Phuloni in the district of East Karbi Anglong. It is contended that such possession is of a period of more than 7 decades. Shri Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that there are documentary proofs since the year 1960 in support of the petitioners. The grievance of the petitioners is against a notice which was served on 22.03.2022 directing the presence of the petitioners for a field verification of the land. It is submitted that the notice is vague and there was no description of any proceeding for land and appears to have been issued without any bona fide purpose. The petitioners have expressed apprehension that the possession of the land may be taken away by the respondent no. 4 in collusion of the official respondents. This Court vide order dated 22.06.2022 had issued notice and had also passed an order not to disturb the possession of the petitioners over the plot of land without following the due process of law. Shri Chutia, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the notice was only to facilitate a field verification in which the presence of the petitioners were required and there was no objective of evicting the petitioners. He has submitted that the said notice should not be construed to be a notice for eviction. Ms. Gohain Baruah, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 has submitted that though the name of her client appears in the notice, her client is not connected with the present plot of land and her land has already been demarcated. In this connection, she has placed before this Court a Page No.# 4/4 communication dated 29.04.2025 issued by the Assistant Revenue Officer, Phuloni Revenue Circle to the Secretary, Department of Revenue, KAAC whereby a report of the Field Enquiry done on 26.04.2024 has been enclosed. A perusal of the said report would not reveal that the Dag and Patta numbers of the land of the petitioners was made part of the said field verification. Be that as it may, this Court, upon perusal of the impugned notice, however finds force in the contention of Shri Chauhan, the learned counsel who has submitted that the notice is vague. At the same time, the objective of the notice which was for field verification cannot be construed to be an action for eviction of land. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that a proper notice giving the details of the land is required to be issued to the petitioners in case a field verification is required. Accordingly, the impugned notice is interfered with, however by giving liberty to the authorities to issue proper notice in accordance with law if such field verification is required. Writ petition stands allowed. The interim order passed earlier stands merged with the final order. The documents placed before this Court by Ms. Gohain Baruah, learned counsel are made part of the records. JUDGE Comparing Assistant