Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010143182025 2025:GAU-AS:12112-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/257/2025 SRI PRADIP SHARMA AND ORS DIST. KAMRUP 2: ON DEATH OF SRI ANUP SHARMA HIS LEGAL HEIRS DIST. KAMRUP 2.1: SMTI KAMINI DEVI S/O LATE ANUP SHARMA 2.2: JITUL SARMA S/O LATE ANUP SHARMA 3: PRABIN SHARMA DIST. KAMRUP 4: MANOJ SARMA NO. 1 AND 3 ARE SONS OF LATE SATISH SHARMA AND NO. 4 IS SON OF LATE RAMESH SARMA AND ALL ARE R/O VILL. PUB SAHAN RANGIA IN THE DIST. OF KAMRUP (R) ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. OF GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI II 2:THE DEFENSE ESTATE OFFICER TEZPUR CIRCLE GOLE PARK ROAD Page No.# 2/6 TEZPUR PIN 784001 ASSAM. 3:THE COMMANDING OFFICER STATION HEAD QUARTER RANGIA ASSAM PIN 781354 4:THE COLLECTOR CUM DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KAMRUP (R) AMINGAON ASSAM PIN 781031 5:THE SDO (C) RANGIA DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM PIN 781354 6:THE CIRCLE OFFICER RANGIA REVENUE CIRCLE RANGIA KAMRUP ASSAM PIN 781354 7:SIDHINATH VIDYAMANDIR HIGH SCHOOL NAKUL RANGIA KAMRUP ASSAM PIN 781354 REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT AND SECY Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D K NATH, MS B SHARMA,MS M DAS Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., FOR CAVEATOR,MR SUMANTH KAKATI,MR. P DEKA,GA, ASSAM Page No.# 3/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER Date : 05.09.2025 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. D.K. Nath, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Ms. A. Gayan, learned CGC for respondent nos.1, 2, and 3; Mr. B. Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General for the State, assisted by Mr. P. Kakati, learned counsel for the respondent nos.4, 5, and 6; Mr. P. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent no.7. 2. By filing this intra Court appeal, the appellants have assailed the order dated 05.06.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 202/2021. 3. The prayers made in the writ petition are as follows: “It is therefore, prayed before your Lordship to admit the present writ petition, call for the records and issue notice upon the respondents directing to show cause as to why the land measuring 4 Kathas 15 Lechas at Dag No. 130 covered by NP Patta No. 31 at village-Nakul under Pub Borigog Mouza, in the district of Kamrup, Assam shall not be restored in the name of the petitioners, followed by subsequent relief/s if any for the interest of justice. And Pending disposal of the present writ petition your Lordship is pleased to pass order/s and direction to the respondent authorities not to make any payment to the respondent No. 7 till the disposal of the present writ petition. And Be pleased to pass any order/s as your Lordship deem fit and proper. 4. The case of the appellants as projected in this intra Court appeal, is that their predecessor-in-interest, namely, Mahamaya Devi, during her life time, was the absolute owner and possessor of 2 (two) plots of land, which is briefly described in paragraph A(1) of this memo of appeal. Page No.# 4/6 5. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that a part of the said land, measuring 4 katha 15 lecha was acquired. The grievance of the appellants is that they had, on coming to know about the land acquisition proceeding, filed an application on 24.06.2018, before the Collector, Kamrup for appropriation of the land acquisition compensation in their favour, being the legal heirs of Late Mahamaya Devi. The said application was made over to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup for determination. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at the end of November, 2020, when the appellants went to the concerned authorities to inquire about the matter, they were informed that the Circle Officer, by a letter dated 21.02.2020, had reported that there was no objection if the compensation was awarded for the respondent no.7 school. Accordingly, the aggrieved appellants had filed the writ petition before this Court. 6. The contention of the appellants before the learned Single Judge was that their application was not put up for hearing and that a report was called for. The report submitted by the Circle Officer, Rangia Revenue Circle had indicated that the original owner of the concerned land was the predecessor of the appellants and that there was no record of transfer of land to the private respondents. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that disregarding the said report of the Circle Officer, the authorities had taken steps for the release of the compensation amount to the respondent no.7 school. 7. The learned Single Judge, upon consideration of the projections made by the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents, had taken notice of the contentions advanced by both sides, specifically, the contention of the appellants is that the two lands were under possession of the two different schools, which are adjacent to each other and therefore, the appellants had Page No.# 5/6 projected that perhaps by a bona fide mistake, the land of the appellants has been mutated in the name of the respondent no.7 school. The learned Single Judge also considered the land revenue records, produced by the learned Additional Advocate General showing the names of the registered pattadars and accordingly, the learned Single Judge had arrived at the finding that the said document goes to show that the land were recorded in the name of Nakul Buniyadi School way back on 11.01.1971 and that the records also reveal that prior to such correction of land revenue records, the land was recorded in the name of the Secretary of the School Board. 8. 8. Accordingly, on arriving at a finding that the concerned land was recorded in the name of the school way back in the year 1971 and the land acquisition proceedings was initiated way back in the year 2005, the award that was passed in the land acquisition cases being LA Case No.10/2005/1062 on 18.09.2013, was approved by the State in the Revenue and Disaster Management (LR), Department on 21.09.2013. 9. Resultantly, as the prayer in the writ petition was for restoration of the name of the predecessor-in-interest on record, the learned Single Judge expressed an opinion that the prayer made in the writ petition cannot be entertained as the appellants have failed to avail remedy under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 10. It is well settled law that once a land acquisition notification is issued, transfer of the land is not permissible. Under those circumstances, the order for restoration of the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners could not have been allowed. Therefore, if the appellants have any grievance regarding the manner in which the land was acquired, or in the manner compensation amount has been disbursed, if so permitted by law, the remedy Page No.# 6/6 available to the appellants would be elsewhere as may be prescribed under the concerned law. 11. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that it was the erroneous mutation made in the name of the school, for which he had approached the land acquisition authorities, but no decision was taken. In this regard, we find that the orders passed by the land acquisition authorities or grievance against non-passing of any orders on the representation of the appellants is not a subject matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge in the writ proceeding, which is evident from the nature of prayer made by the appellants in the writ petition, which is extracted hereinabove. In any case, had such challenge been made, it would have been a highly disputed question of law, which cannot be decided in a writ petition. 12. Under such circumstances, the Court does not find any merit in the challenge made against the impugned order dated 05.06.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 202/2021. 13. Accordingly, this intra Court appeal stands dismissed at the admission stage without issuance of notice on the respondents. 14. The parties are left to bear their own cost. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant