Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010140132025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3672/2025 JEHERUL HAQUE AHMED SON OF LATE AKKEL ALI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NALIGAON, BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BARPETA ASSAM 3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER SARTHEBARI REVENUE CIRCLE BARPETA ASSAM 4:SRI CHIDANANDA PATHAK SON OF LATE BHABENDRA NATH PATHAK SARTHEBARI TOWN BARPETA ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M HUSSAIN, MR. N HAQUE,MR. S R BARBHUIYA,MR. A K AZAD,MR. P K ROYCHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE, GA, ASSAM Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 25.06.2025 Heard Shri PK Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri R Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department, Assam as well as Shri H Sarma, learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate, Assam. 2. Considering the subject matter involved and the order, which this Court proposes to pass, notice may not be required to be issued to the private respondent and the writ petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage. 3. As per the facts projected, the petitioner, as one of the plaintiffs, had instituted TS No. 38/2023 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Barpeta, for declaration of right, title and interest and also for cancellation of mutation. Along with the said suit, an injunction application was also filed which is pending disposal. The learned Court, vide an order dated 27.04.2023 had passed an order of maintain status quo in the application filed by the respondent no. 4. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that during the pendency of the said suit, the private respondent has filed an application for demarcation and very recently, the petitioner has come to learn that 30.06.2025 has been fixed for such demarcation. 5. It is the contention advanced by Shri Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter being adjudicated by a competent Civil Court, such action by the official respondents to proceed with the demarcation would not only be prejudicial but would also cause irreparable loss and injury to the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, both Shri Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel and Shri Page No.# 3/3 Sarma, learned State Counsel have resisted the prayer by submitting that the approach to a Writ Court in a matter of this nature is misconceived and in case of any grievance, the petitioner can approach the Civil Court which is in seisin of the matter. 7. This Court, after considering the rival submissions, finds force in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents. This Court is of the opinion that when the entire dispute is the subject matter before the competent Civil Court in TS No. 38/2023, any further grievance has to be raised before the said Court by filing separate application. Though certain apprehension has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that his earlier application under Order 39 Rules 1, 2 and 3 read with Section 151 of the Cr.PC is still pending, this Court is of the firm opinion that there is no bar for filing another application in view of the present development. 8. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that this petition is not required to be entertained. Accordingly, the same is closed by giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court within a period of 10 days from today i.e. 07.07.2025. 9. To balance the equities, it is, however directed that till the next date fixed i.e. 07.07.2025, no action be taken for demarcation of the land in question. 10. In the event, an application is filed by the petitioner before the learned Civil Court, the same is directed to be considered strictly in accordance with law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant