Page No. 1/4 GAHC010002662025 2025:GAU-AS:659 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/253/2025 KRISHNA CHETRY AND 2 ORS W/O- LATE BHAKTA BAHADUR CHETRY ALIAS KSHETRY, R/O- NATUNPARA, WARD NO. 15, P.S. AND P.O.- BONGAIGAON, DIST.- BONGAIGAON, ASSAM 2: SMT. NIBEDITA DEVI D/O- LATE BHAKTA BAHADUR CHETRY ALIAS KSHETRY R/O- NATUNPARA WARD NO. 15 P.S. AND P.O.- BONGAIGAON DIST.- BONGAIGAON ASSAM 3: SMT. RASHMITA DEVI D/O- LATE BHAKTA BAHADUR CHETRY ALIAS KSHETRY R/O- NATUNPARA WARD NO. 15 P.S. AND P.O.- BONGAIGAON DIST.- BONGAIGAON ASSAM VERSUS THE BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY BTC, BODOFA NWGWR, KOKRAJHAR, BODOLAND TERROITORIAL REGION (ASSAM) 2:THE SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT BTC BODOFA NWGWR KOKRAJHAR DIST.- KOKRAJHAR Page No. 2/4 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CHIRANG KAJALGAON BTR ASSAM 4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER SIDLI REVENUE CIRCLE DIST.- CHIRANG BTR ASSAM 5:THE LOT MANDAL SIDLI REVENUE CIRCLE DIST.- CHIRANG BTR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B J MUKHERJEE, MS R SAHA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, BTC, SC, REVENUE,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 22.01.2025 Heard Mr. B.J. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. R.K. Mushahary, learned Standing Counsel, BTC for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5; and Mr. J. Handique, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent no. 3. 2. In view of the limited nature of grievance, raised by the petitioners in this writ petition and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final consideration at the motion stage itself. 3. The petitioner no. 1 was the wife and the petitioner nos. 2 & 3 were the daughters of one Bhakta Bahadur Chetry @ Kshetry [since deceased]. The petitioners have averred that Late Bhakta Bahadur Chetry @ Kshetry purchased a plot of land measuring 1 Bigha, covered by Dag no. 50 & Periodic Patta no. 22, situate at Village – Kukurmari under Sidli Revenue Page No. 3/4 Circle [‘the subject-plot’, for short] of erstwhile undivided Goalpara District [presently, within the District of Chirang] vide a registered Sale Deed no. 1070/1050 dated 20.02.1979 from its erstwhile owners. It is further projected that after purchase, possession of the subject-plot was handed over to Bhakta Bahadur Chetry @ Kshetry and his name was thereafter, mutated in the records of right in respect of the subject-plot vide an Order dated 31.10.1984 passed by the jurisdictional SDC. After the demise of Bhakta Bahadur Chetry @ Kshetry on 17.11.2009, the petitioners being the legal representative of Bhakta Bahadur Chetry @ Kshetry, inherited the subject-plot and they have been paying the land revenue, etc. since then. By an Order dated 31.12.2013 passed by the Circle Officer, Sidli Revenue Circle, the names of the petitioners also got mutated in the records of right by virtue of inheritance and possession. 4. The petitioners had thereafter, made an application for demarcation of the subject-plot before the Circle Officer, Sidli Revenue Circle, District – Chirang [the respondent no. 4]. The said application has been registered and numbered as D/Case no. 39/2020-2021. After registering the demarcation application, the respondent no. 4 issued notices on various dates to the other stakeholders for the purpose of carrying the demarcation of the subject-plot including Notices dated 11.05.2021, dated 17.01.2022, dated 17.02.2022, copies of which have been annexed to this writ petition. 5. Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that despite initiation of the process of demarcation in the year : 2020-2021, the said process of demarcation has not yet been brought to its logical conclusion. Hence, the writ petition. 6. Mr. Mushahary, learned Standing Counsel, BTC and Mr. Handique, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam have submitted since the application of the petitioners has been registered as D/Case no. 39/2020-2021 and the process has already been initiated by the respondent no. 4 by issuance of notices to all the stakeholders, the writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 4 to bring the demarcation process, D/Case no. 39/2020-2021 to its logical conclusion as expeditiously as possible. Both Mr. Mushahary and Mr. Handique have submitted that a period of 3 [three] months would be a Page No. 4/4 reasonable period. 7. Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioners has agreed to the submissions of the learned State Counsel. 8. In view of the broad consensus arrived at in the afore-stated manner by the learned counsel for parties and considering the fact that despite initiation of demarcation process in respect of the subject-plot as far back as in the year 2020-2021 the same has not been brought to its logical conclusion, as alleged by the petitioners herein, this Court is of the considered view that instead of keeping this writ petition pending, the same can be disposed of, as submitted by the learned State Counsel, with a direction to the respondent no. 4 before whom the demarcation proceeding is pending, to bring the demarcation proceeding of D/Case no. 39/2020-2021, to its logical conclusion as expeditiously as possible and within an outer limit of 3 [three] months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is accordingly ordered. 9. The petitioners shall submit a copy of this order and a copy of the writ petition along with annexures, at the office of the respondent no. 4. 10. With the observations made and direction given above, the writ petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant