Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010118822024 2025:GAU-AS:3202 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3096/2024 RAJA SARKAR S/O- LATE MURARI MOHAN SARKAR, VILL- BIDYAPARA PART I, P.S AND DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN-783301 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 06. 2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DHUBRI (REVENUE BRANCH) P.O P.S AND DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN CODE -783301. 3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER DHUBRI REVENUE CIRCLE P.O P.S AND DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN CODE- 783301. 4:MOHUA SARKAR Page No.# 2/3 D/O- LATE MURARI MOHAN SARKAR R/O- T.R PHUKAN ROAD WARD NO- 06 P.O P.S AND DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783301 5:SHILA SARKAR W/O- LATE MRINMOY KUMAR SARKAR R/O- PYARI MOHAN LANE WARD NO- 15 P.O- BIDYAPARA P.S AND DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-78330 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A Z AHMED, MR. L R MAZUMDER Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE, GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 24.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. A. Z. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. U. Das, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam representing the State respondents and Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue Department. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 17.05.2024 passed in Objection Case No. 15/2024 by the respondent No. 3, whereby NOC for sell/gift/transfer of the Page No.# 3/3 subject land was denied to the petitioner. 3. Mr. Borpujari, learned standing counsel for the Revenue Department and Ms. U. Das, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam representing the State respondents submitted that in terms of determination made in Riju Prasad Sarma Vs. State of Assam & Ors reported in 2022 6 supreme (GaulR) 111, this writ petition is not maintainable so far the same relates to direction for demarcation inasmuch as, it was held in Riju Prasad Sarma (supra) that a writ petition is not maintainable raising a claim or dispute of demarcation, the same being a notified service and there being efficacious alternative remedy under ARTPS Act, 2012. 4. At this stage, Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner may be allowed to withdraw the present writ petition and to approach the designated public servant seeking demarcation of the land in terms of the ARTPS Act, 2012 and the rules framed there under. 5. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition stands disposed of on withdrawal with a liberty as prayed for. It is provided that the period spend in this Court be excluded from the prescribed period of limitation for preferring an appeal under the APR Act, 2012. JUDGE Comparing Assistant