Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010003392024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/191/2024 PRASANTA DAS AND 3 ORS S/O- LATE MADHAB CH. DAS, R/O- GABARDHAN BAGAN, WARD NO. 2, P.O./ P.S.- DHUBRI, PIN- 783301, ASSAM. 2: NANI GOPAL DAS S/O- LATE MADHAB CH. DAS R/O- GABARDHAN BAGAN WARD NO. 2 P.O./ P.S.- DHUBRI PIN- 783301 ASSAM. 3: ALO KAR D/O- LATE MADHAB CH. DAS W/O- LATE ANIL KAR RESIDENT OF- 2 NO. COLONY P.O./ DIST.- GOALPARA PIN- 783101 ASSAM. 4: RATAN KUMAR KANU S/O- LATE BHAGABAN KUMAR KANU RESIDENT OF GUARD COLONEY WARD NO. 12 Page No.# 2/6 DHUBRI TOWN AMCO ROAD P.O./ DIST.- DHUBRI PIN- 783323 ASSAM VERSUS THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER,DHUBRI DISTRICT- DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN- 783301. 2:THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DHUBRI DISTRICT- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783301. 3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER DHUBRI DISTRICT- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783301. 4:ON THE DEATH OF LATE BHAGWAN PROSAD HIS LEGAL HEIRS NAMELY- 4.1:SHRI VARUN PRASAD S/O- LATE BHAGWAN PROSAD R/O- PM DUTTA ROAD WARD NO.2 NEAR REGISTRAR OFFICE DHUBRI P.O.-DHUBRI PIN-783301 ASSAM 4.2:SHRI ARUN PRASAD S/O- LATE BHAGWAN PROSAD R/O- PM DUTTA ROAD WARD NO.2 NEAR REGISTRAR OFFICE DHUBRI P.O.-DHUBRI Page No.# 3/6 PIN-783301 ASSAM 4.3:SMTI. MUNNI GUPTA D/O- BHAGWAN PRASOD R/O- PM DUTTA ROAD WARD NO.2 NEAR REGISTRAR OFFICE DHUBRI P.O.-DHUBRI PIN-783301 ASSAM 4.4:SMTI BABLI GUPTA D/O- LATE BHAGWAN PRASOD R/O- PM DUTTA ROAD WARD NO.2 NEAR REGISTRAR OFFICE DHUBRI P.O.-DHUBRI PIN-783301 ASSAM 5:SANKAR PROSAD S/O- LATE KAMAL PROSAD SHAH R/O- PM DUTTA ROAD WARD NO.2 NEAR REGISTRAR OFFICE DHUBRI P.O.-DHUBRI PIN-783301 ASSAM 6:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-0 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K DEKA, MR. R. KARIM,MR. P DAIMARY Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, K BHARALI (R-4.2),MR B KAUSHIK(R-4.2),MR. S HAZARIKA(R-4.2),MR S M T CHISTIE(R-4.2) Page No.# 4/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 15.12.2025 Heard Shri PK Deka, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. M Barman, learned State Counsel, Assam and Shri B Kaushik, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4(b). 2. It appears that during the pendency of the writ petition, the original respondent no. 4 had passed away and he was substituted by his legal representatives as the respondent nos. 4(a) to 4(d). 3. The approach to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is with regard to the inaction of the respondent authorities, more particularly, the respondent no. 1 to consider the petition filed on 04.01.2022 for partition and/or demarcation of the suit land which is registered as Demarcation Case No. 11/2023. It is the case of the petitioners that a partition suit was filed, namely, T.S. No. 315/2007 in which, a preliminary decree was passed on 13.05.2011. It, however, appears that by mistake, an execution case was instituted which was, however, rejected by the learned Executing Court. The petitioners had also thereafter filed Civil Revision Petition (I/O) No. 260/2017 which was, however, dismissed on withdrawal with a liberty to the petitioners to file an application under Section 54 read with Order 20 Rule 18(1) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908. It is under those provisions that the application was filed on 04.01.2022 which has not been considered and disposed of till date. Page No.# 5/6 4. Shri Deka, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the preliminary decree is required to be executed through the concerned Collector and by inadvertence, the petitioners had filed an application for execution which was rightly dismissed by the Executing Court and the subsequent CRP was also closed giving liberty to the petitioners to file an appropriate application. From the records, it appears that such an application has, indeed been filed on 04.01.2022 which is pending consideration. 5. Shri Kaushik, learned counsel for the respondent no.4(b) has submitted that he would not object if a direction is given to the concerned respondent no. 1 to consider and dispose the petition dated 04.01.2022 in accordance with law. 6. Ms. Barman, learned State Counsel does not raise any objection to such a direction. 7. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that since the petitioners were pursuing their remedy in a wrong forum which has led to the delay, interest of justice would require a consideration by the respondent no. 1 to the petition filed on 04.01.2022. Such consideration is, accordingly be directed to be made by the respondent no. 1 in accordance with law and by giving all stakeholders opportunity of hearing. 8. Let the aforesaid exercise be conducted and completed within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Page No.# 6/6 9. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. JUDGE Comparing Assistant