Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010162502025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4354/2025 BIJOY KRISHNA DAM SON OF LATE ANIL RANJAN DAM RESIDENT OF LONGAI ROAD, WARD NO. 2(OLD)/3 (NEW), P.O. SETTLEMENT ROAD, DIST. KARIMGANJ, ASSAM, PIN CODE- 788712 VERSUS THE SRIBHUMI MUNICIPAL BOARD AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, SRIBHUMI MUNICIPAL BOARD, SRIBHUMI, ASSAM 2:THE CHAIRMAN SRIBHUMI MUNICIPAL BOARD SRIBHUMI. 3:SRI NABA KISHOR DEB S/O SRI GOBINDA DEB RESIDENT OF LONGAI ROAD WARD NO. 3 (NEW) SRIBHUMI P.O. SETTLEMENT ROAD DIST. SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN-788712 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S BANIK, MS F BEGUM,S BARBHUYAN Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SRIBHUMI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, MS F AHMED (R- 3),MR. S K GHOSH (R-3) Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 14.08.2025 Heard Shri S. Banik, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri A. Dhar, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 as well as Shri S.K. Ghosh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to a site inspection of the premises in question and also to decide the complaint lodged by the rival parties. For ready reference, the relief prayed for is extracted herein below: “In the premises aforesaid, it is humbly prayed that Your Lordships may be admit the petition, call for records, issue notice calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus be not issued directing the respondent authorities to- a. carry out a site inspection of the premises of the petitioner and the private respondent in presence of the respective parties; b. decide the complaint of the petitioner on the basis of the Site Inspection Report and on the basis of copies of permissions etc. as can be furnished by the parties; and upon cause or causes shown and after hearing the parties, be pleased to allow the writ petition and/or pass such order/orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper. And the petitioner, as in duty bound, shall ever pray.” This matter had come up for consideration on 04.08.2025 and 06.08.2025 Page No.# 3/3 and a consensus was arrived with regard to the aspect that if such an inspection would be permitted, the grievance of the petitioner would be redressed. Both Shri Dhar, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ghosh, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 have submitted that they are not opposed to a joint inspection. Shri Ghosh, the learned counsel has however hastened to add that such inspection has to be at the instance of the original land owner or his authorised representative. Shri Banik, the learned counsel for the petitioner has responded that the petitioner is the power of attorney holder of the original land owner who is his elder brother and in any case, the original land owner would also be present at the time of such inspection. In view of the aforesaid position, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting a site inspection of the premises by the parties in presence of the authorised representative of the respondent no. 1. As observed above, the original owner would be present in such inspection which is to be done within a period of 3 (three) weeks from today. It is provided that till such date of inspection, status quo as on today shall be maintained. It is needless to state that the rival parties would also provide the original documents pertaining to their claim at the time of the inspection. JUDGE Comparing Assistant