Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010257422023 2025:GAU-AS:8048 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6645/2023 MOKBUL HUSSAIN PATOWARY AND ANR S/O- LATE MUNSHI AMINULLAH PATOWARY, WARD NO. 6, P.O.- DOBOKA, DISTRICT- HOJAI, ASSAM, PIN- 782440. 2: SIJUL HALDAR S/O- KAMAL HALDAR DOBOKA TOWN WARD NO. 7 P.O.- DOBOKA DISTRICT- HOJAI ASSAM PIN- 782440 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HOJAI SANKARDEV NAGAR DISTRICT- HOJAI ASSAM PIN- 782442. 3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER DOBOKA MUNICIPAL BOARD DOBOKA DISTRICT- HOJAI ASSAM PIN- 782440. 4:THE CHAIRPERSON DOBOKA MUNICIPAL BOARD DOBOKA DISTRICT- HOJAI ASSAM PIN- 782440 Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for the Petitioner : MD. A J ATIA, MS A H ATIA,MS J MARIYAM Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR S DUTTA (R/N- 3 & 4),A K GHOSE (R/N- 3 & 4),MR. S DUTTA (R/N- 3 & 4) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER Date : 17.06.2025 Heard Mr. A. J. Atia, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 and Mr. R. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. 2. The petitioners’ case is that they and their predecessors, along with other businessman, were given a plot (vita) adjacent to the market run by the Doboka Gaon Panchayat and had been doing a small business therein. The petitioners thereafter developed their plots under their occupation and constructed temporary huts for their business. The petitioners were also paying yearly rent to the authorised lessee of the Doboka Town Committee against issuance of receipts. 3. The petitioners’ case is that they were subsequently allotted vita Nos. 7 & 5 respectively by the Doboka Town Committee. In the year 2017, the Doboka Municipal Board decided to construct RCC shed in the market area, for letting out to the existing vita holders in consideration of Rs.50,000/- only as security money. 4. The petitioners deposited Rs.50,000/- to the Doboka Municipal Board and the same was acknowledged by the Doboka Municipal Board by way of a receipt dated 29.05.2017. The petitioners were also made to deposit another Rs.30,000/-. However, they were not being given any receipt for the Page No.# 3/4 Rs.30,000/-. As the respondents did not allot the petitioners any vita as has been promised and despite the payment of Rs. 80,000/-, the writ petition has been filed. 5. The petitioners’ counsel has taken this Court to the Doboka Gaon Panchayat permission letter and licence dated 10.01.1983, issued to Sri Kamal Haldar, son of Gopal Haldar, resident of Doboka Gaon Panchayat, Mouza- Jamunamukh, who is the father of the petitioner no.2. He accordingly submits that a direction should be issued to the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 to allot an RCC shed each to the petitioners, in the newly constructed market under Doboka Municipal Board, to allow them to continue with their business. 6. The counsels for the respondents, on the other hand, deny that the petitioners were paying revenue for the last 30/35 years against the vitas. They submit that the Doboka Municipal Board has never demanded any amount from the petitioners, for handing over the possession of the market shed. Further, no vita was allotted to the petitioners and that there is no regular tax collection record available. They also submit that para 3 of the writ petition clearly shows that the petitioners were not running their business in their market, but in a plot of land adjacent to the market. They submit that as the petitioners’ claim for allotment of a vita is based on disputed questions of facts, the petitioners should approach the Civil Court. 7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 8. It is seen that though the petitioners have annexed a copy of the cheque dated 18.05.2017, which is the alleged payment of Rs.50,000/- to the Doboka Page No.# 4/4 Town Committee, there is no statement of account annexed to show that any amount had been transferred from the account of the petitioners to the account of the Doboka Town Committee. 9. Further, there is no record of the additional payment of Rs.30,000/- made by the petitioners to the respondents. As can be seen from the affidavits-in- opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 individually, they have all denied that the petitioners have been paying revenue for the last 30/35 years against any vita. The affidavits state that there is no record of payment of any revenue available in the office records. There is also no record of any regular tax collection available in the office. Further, no allotment order regarding the vita is in the office records. Further, the Doboka Municipal Board had not demanded any amount from the petitioners for handing over the possession of the market shed. 10. The averments made by the respondents in their affidavits-in-oppositions clearly goes to show that there are disputed questions of facts, which would have to be adjudicated before a Civil Court, wherein evidence can be recorded. 11. In view of there being an efficacious alternative remedy available, this Court is of the view that the petitioners should approach the Civil Court for redressal of their grievance, as evidence is required to be recorded. 12. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant