Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010101652025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./272/2025 1.M/S BHAGWAN MET PRIVATE LIMITED 105, B.R. TOWER, 21 JANA PATH LANE, ULUBARI, P.O.-GUWAHATI-781007, DISTRICT KAMRUP(M), ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS DIRECTORS, SRI BINOD KEYAL, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, SON OF LATE S.L. KEYAL. 2: BINOD KEYAL SON OF LATE S.L. KEYAL R/O. KESHAV KUNJ SONI RAM BORA ROAD ULUBARI P/O. GUWAHATI-781007 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM VERSUS 1.THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD.AND 3 ORS. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, BIJULEE BHAWAN, PALTAN BAZAR, P.O. GUWAHATI-781001, DISTRICT-KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER (DISTRIBUTION) LOWER ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI-781001. 3:THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER SONAPUR SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICE SONAPUR ASSAM. 4:THE FREDER MAINTENANCE ENGINEER SONAPUR ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION APDCL (LAR) SONAPUR ASSAM For the Review Petitioner(s) : Mr. O.P. Bhati, Advocate. : Mr. P. Sarma, Advocate. : Mr. R. Bhagawati, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. B. Chowdhury, Standing Counsel, APDCL. Page No.# 2/3 – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR 28.01.2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. O.P. Bhati, learned Advocate for the review petitioners and Mr. B. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL for the respondents. The review petitioners were aggrieved with the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (in short, APDCL) erecting electric poles over a portion of land which is claimed by them. The learned Single Judge did not enter into the thickets of the facts of the case for the reason that it presented a disputed statement regarding possession and ownership of the law in question. Similar view was reiterated by the Division Bench vide order dated 07.04.2025 passed in WA No.123/2025, which is sought to be revised by the present petition on the ground that the decision in the case would not have required any collection of evidence regarding possession, requiring a full-fledged suit. In that case, the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could have been exercised for redressal of the grievances of the review petitioners. The Appellate Court, it has been contended, took a short-cut approach of endorsing the view of the learned Single Judge without entertaining the arguments urged on behalf of the review petitioners. Whatever may be the case, on a consideration of the fact that Page No.# 3/3 the both sides claimed the land to be theirs, we find justification in the order of the learned Single Judge as also of the Division Bench that if at all the rights of the review petitioners is to be vindicated, the forum would be the Civil Courts and not any proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Finding no merit in this review petition, the same is dismissed. However, the review petitioners shall have the liberty to approach the appropriate forum for vindication of their rights. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant