Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010082212022 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2929/2022 GOBINDA BARMAN S/O- LT. RAGHUNATH BARMAN, R/O- VILL. MALOIBARI, P.O. BARPAK, P.S. KHETRI, DIST.- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY.- 781006. 2:THE DY. COMMISSIONER KAMRUP(M) ASSAM. 3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER SONAPUR REVENUE CIRCLE KAMRUP(M) ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR J I BARBHUIYA, MS F BEGUM,MRS. K H CHOUDHURY,MR. L MOHAN Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE, GA, ASSAM Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 16.12.2025 Heard Shri J.I. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri H. Sharma, learned State Counsel and Ms. G. Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department. 2. Considering the subject matter involved and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the instant case which is pending since the year 2022 is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. 3. As per the facts projected, an area of 32 Bighas under Sarkari Dag No. 2 of village Maloibari Jangal in the Mouza Dimoria was allotted to the father of the petitioner including 31 other families by providing ½ Bighas to each 32 families. However, till now there is no formal order of allotment and in the meantime, there was a notice under Section 18 of the Settlement Rule in the year 1988 which according to the petitioner was also interfered with by this Court in Civil Rule No. 109/1989. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that on the expiry of his father, representation has been made for passing an appropriate order of settlement of the land in question which has not been done. 5. Shri Barhbuiya, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is a policy for settlement of land to indigenous people and therefore, there is a right for a fair consideration. He is also emphasized of the fact of long possession of the land by the petitioner. 6. Shri Sharma, the learned State Counsel has submitted that as per written Page No.# 3/3 instructions, certain area of government land appears to be in the possession of the petitioner. He has also emphasized that presently, there is a policy for consideration of allotment under which the petitioner can file a fresh representation which would be considered in accordance with law. 7. Ms. Hazarika, the learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department has endorsed the submission of the learned State Counsel. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances and the materials available on record, the instant writ petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application under the existing land policy before the appropriate Authority (District Commissioner). If such an application is made in the prescribed manner, the same is directed to be considered and disposed of in accordance with law expeditiously. 9. While considering the same, the petitioner may be given an opportunity of hearing so that he can produce the relevant documents also. The entire exercise be completed expeditiously and preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of such application along with a certified copy of this order. 10. Writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant