Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010256862023 2025:GAU-AS:14943 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6631/2023 MOKBUL HUSSAIN AND 3 ORS SON OF LATE SIRAJUDDIN SHEIKH, R/O- VILL.- ASHUDUBI, P.O. AND P.S.- KRISHNAI, DIST.- GOALPARA, ASSAM, PIN- 783126. 2: MUNJIL HUSSAIN SON OF LATE SIRAJUDDIN SHEIKH R/O- VILL.- ASHUDUBI P.O. AND P.S.- KRISHNAI DIST.- GOALPARA ASSAM PIN- 783126. 3: AYUB KHAN SON OF LATE SIRAJUDDIN SHEIKH R/O- VILL.- ASHUDUBI P.O. AND P.S.- KRISHNAI DIST.- GOALPARA ASSAM PIN- 783126. 4: MOHAMMAD ALI SON OF LATE SIRAJUDDIN SHEIKH Page No.# 2/4 R/O- VILL.- ASHUDUBI P.O. AND P.S.- KRISHNAI DIST.- GOALPARA ASSAM PIN- 783126 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GOALPARA P.O. AND DISTRICT- GOALPARA ASSAM PIN- 783101. 3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER MATIA REVENUE CIRCLE P.O.- MATIA DISTRICT- GOALPARA ASSAM PIN- 783125 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR N AHMED, MR A BASUMATARY,MR. M M ZAMAN Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE, GA, ASSAM BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 06-11-2025 1. Heard Mr. M. M. Zaman, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B. J. Page No.# 3/4 Talukdar, learned State counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner No. 1 filed a Title Suit being T.S. Case No. 22/2016 for partition of a plot of land, measuring 16 Bighas, 14 Lechas, amongst the plaintiff and the defendants in the said Suit. 3. During the pendency of the said Suit, on 25.02.2022, mutation was granted in respect of a plot of land, measuring 2 Bighas, 4 Kathas, 11 Lechas in the name of the petitioners, including the petitioner No. 1 by inheritance in place of their predecessors’ interest. 4. However, subsequently, the concerned Lat Mondal, put a note that a case is pending in respect of the said land and accordingly, the mutation was cancelled. Though, no speaking order or any order is uploaded as regards the cancellation of the mutation, however, in the revenue records, it is shown that due to pendency of the said Title Suit, the mutation was cancelled. 5. The respondent Circle Officer has filed an affidavit and it is his stand that since the said Title Suit is pending and the mutation application was filed concealing the pendency of said Suit, therefore, the mutation was cancelled. There is nothing to suggest in the affidavit that such cancellation of mutation was made on the prayer of the petitioners and/or defendants or any 3rd party but only on the ground that the prayer for mutation was made concealing the pendency of the said Suit. 6. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the authority may not be without jurisdiction to cancel a mutation granted for alleged concealment of fact, however, such exercise cannot be carried out or such order cannot be passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the party affected i.e., in whose favour the mutation has been granted. 7. That being the position, the impugned decision to cancel the mutation is interfered with. Accordingly, the same stands set aside and quashed. Page No.# 4/4 8. However, while parting with the record, it is made clear that the concerned Circle Officer may exercise such power, if permissible under law but with a due notice to the petitioners. 9. It is further clarified that this order shall not be treated as any comment on merit of the petitioners’ claim that has been made in T.S. No. 22/2016 and said Title Suit should be decided as per merit without being influenced by the present order as well as the order of granting mutation in favour of the petitioners earlier. 10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant