Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010119662025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3043/2025 SANJIB ROY S/O LT SHYAMAL ROY R/O PANDU JOYMOTI NAGAR BY LANE 6 PO PANDU PS JALUKBARI GUWAHATI 22 KAMRUP METRO ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REP BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM REVENUE LR DEPTT DISPUR GUWAHATI 6 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER SRIBHUMI DIST SRI BHUMI ASSAM PIN 788710 3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER NILAMBAZAR REVENUE CIRCLE PO NILAMBAZAR DIST SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN 78872 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M A ISLAM, MR J I MONDAL Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPT Linked Case : WP(C)/3045/2025 SARIF UDDIN S/O ABDUL MUTLIB R/O VILL FARAMPASHA PART I PO AND PS NILAMBAZAR DIST SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN 788722 VERSUS Page No.# 2/4 THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REP BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM REVENUE LR DEPTT DISPUR GUWAHATI 6 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER SRIBHUMI DIST SRI BHUMI ASSAM PIN 788710 3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER NILAMBAZAR REVENUE CIRCLE PO NILAMBAZAR DIST SRI BUMI ASSAM PIN 788722 ------------ Advocate for : MR M A ISLAM Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 12-08-2025 The subject matter involved in both these petitions being similar, the same are taken up for an analogous hearing and are disposed of by this common order. It may be mentioned that the concerned District Commissioner has filed the affidavit and the learned Standing Counsel has also placed on record the latest instructions. So far as the petitioner Sanjib Roy in WP(C)/3043/2025 is concerned, he claims to be a successor and possessor of different plots of land for which he had made an application on 16.05.2025 for mutation. The description of the said plots of land are as follows: (i) Dag No. 289 of Patta No. 563, (ii) Dag No. 290 of Patta No. 550, (iii) Dag No. 293 of Patta No. 563. So far as the petitioner Md. Sarif Uddin in WP(C)/3045/2025 is concerned, he has contended that he had purchased a plot of land measuring 5 Katha 13 Sotak 2 Gonda (i.e. 0.095 Acre) covered by old Dag No. 199 of Khatian No. 930 and new Dag Page No.# 3/4 No. 291 of Patta No. 678, situated at Pargana-Dauadi, Mouza-Farampasha Part-I, Rev. Circle-Nilambazar, Dist-Karimganj, Assam vide a registered Sale Deed No. 2681 dtd. 20.11.2020 and thereafter had made an application for mutation dated 17.05.2025 before the Circle Officer, Nilambazar Revenue Circle. The grievance of the petitioners in the two cases is with regard to the inaction for finalizing the application for mutation of their respective plots of land. Shri M. A. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the applications filed for mutation are liable to be acted upon and brought to a logical conclusion which is a right conferred to the petitioners. Shri H. Sarma, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam has submitted that the concerned District Commissioner, Sribhumi has filed affidavit-in-opposition in both these cases. By drawing the attention of this Court to the same, the learned State Counsel has submitted that the delay in considering the application is because of the reason that the digitization of land records was incomplete. He has however contended that the said process of digitization has been initiated and would be completed shortly. Endorsing the submissions of the learned State Counsel, Ms. G. Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department has placed before this Court an up-to-date instruction dated 11.08.2025 issued by the Office of the Director of Land Records Assam, as per which, it has been informed that necessary action has been initiated by the Directorate for digitizing the land records of the concerned area. From the above discussion, it appears that there is no dispute involved in the issue which relates to finalizing the application for mutation and the reason which appears is because of non-digitization of the land records. Both the affidavit-in-oppositions filed in these two cases as well as the written instruction dated 11.08.2025 would however show that the steps have been taken for digitizing the land records. Ms. Hazarika, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that such process is expected to be over within a period of a month. Page No.# 4/4 Considering the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that since the issue involved would be redressed upon digitization of the land records which is expected to be completed within a month, there is no requirement to continue with the writ petitions and accordingly, the same are closed. It is however directed that the aforesaid process of digitization of the land records be completed expeditiously and as submitted within a period of a month from today. Thereafter the application for mutation submitted by the petitioners be acted and brought to a logical conclusion without any further delay and in any case within an outer limit of 2 months from such date of completion of the digitization. Both the writ petitions stand disposed of. The written instructions dated 11.08.2025 is made part of the records. JUDGE Comparing Assistant