Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010140552025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3911/2025 DIPAK DAS S/O LATE PANCHARAN DAS, PERMANENT ADRESS- H.NO. 231, NEAR GAUHATI NURSERY, A.T. ROAD, KAMAKHYA, GUWAHATI, P.O.- BHARALUMUKH, P.S.- JALUKBARI, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN- 781009. PRESENT ADDRESS- SHIRSTY RESIDENCY, BLOCK-1, FLAT NO. 12B, LANKESWAR, GUWAHATI, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN-781014 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND D.M.(L.R.) DEPARTMENT, ASSAM SECRETARIAT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 6, ASSAM 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KAMRUP METROPOLITAN DISTRICT GUWAHATI 3:CIRCLE OFFICER GUWAHATI CIRCLE OFFICE ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MD. M H CHOUDHURY, TANZIM L. CHOUDHURY,MR. S N AHMED,R. BARUAH,MR MONZUR K CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPT, GA, ASSAM Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 18.07.2025 Heard Shri M.H. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri M.K. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri N. Das, learned State Counsel as well as Ms. G. Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department. 2. The grievance of the petitioner pertains to a prayer for mutation over a plot of land, which according to the petitioner, he has inherited. It is also averred that on the aforesaid plot of land, there are constructions wherein the GMC has also issued a holding number. 3. Shri Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the prayer for mutation has not been considered on the pretext that some case is pending in the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the details of which have not been provided to him. He has also drawn the attention of this Court that recourse to the Right to Information Act was taken, in which, however, no information has been provided. 4. Shri Das, learned State Counsel as well as Ms. Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel have however submitted that there is a provision of filing a second appeal, which does not appear to have been done. 5. This Court has perused the documents annexed to the writ petition and also the averments made therein. It appears that on 03.03.2025, the first appeal was filed by the petitioner and the same is pending. Though a Page No.# 3/3 representation dated 22.05.2025 has been annexed to the petition, the said representation is addressed to the District Commissioner, Kamrup, who is not the Second Appellate Authority. 6. Under the scheme of the Right to Information Act, the aggrieved party can prefer a second appeal, which does not appear to have been done. Further, it also does not transpire from the materials on record as to the fate of the first appeal preferred. 7. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the proper recourse of the petitioner is to exhaust the remedy under the Right to Information Act and, if still aggrieved, may approach the appropriate forum of law in accordance with law. 8. In view of the above, the writ petition is closed by giving liberty to the petitioner to pursue his remedy in accordance with law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant