Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010006922023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/298/2023 ABDUR ROB AND 5 ORS S/O- LATE SAYED ALI, R/O- VILL- KHAGAIL, P.O- CHATAL, PH EAGRASATI, P.S AND DIST- KARIMGANJ, ASSAM, PIN- 788720 2: SUNABAN BIBI W/O- ABDUR ROB AND D/O- LATE MAKADDAS ALI R/O- VILL- KHAGAIL P.O- CHATAL PH EAGRASATI P.S AND DIST- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788720 3: ABDUL BASIT S/O- ABDUR ROB R/O- VILL- KHAGAIL P.O- CHATAL PH EAGRASATI P.S AND DIST- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788720 4: SAD HUSSAIN S/O- ABDUR ROB R/O- VILL- KHAGAIL P.O- CHATAL PH EAGRASATI P.S AND DIST- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788720 5: HASIB HUSSAIN S/O- ABDUR ROB R/O- VILL- KHAGAIL Page No.# 2/5 P.O- CHATAL PH EAGRASATI P.S AND DIST- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788720 6: ALTAF HUSSAIN S/O- ABDUR ROB R/O- VILL- KHAGAIL P.O- CHATAL PH EAGRASATI P.S AND DIST- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 78872 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, REVENUE DEPTT, DISPUR, GHY- 6 2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KARIMGANJ P.O AND DIST- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788710 3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER NILAMBAZAR REVENUE CIRCLE P.O- NILAMBAZAR DIST- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788722 4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER RAM KRISHNA NAGAR REVENUE CIRCLE P.O- RAM KRISHNA NAGAR DIST- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788166 5:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD CHACHAL GUWAHATI- 781036 6:THE REGIONAL PROJECT ENGINEER BARAK VALLEY REGION Page No.# 3/5 SILCHAR DIST- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788001 7:TAPAN KUMAR DAS SECRETARY SHON BEEL FISHERMEN COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD VILL- KALIBAZAR P.O- ANILGARH P.S- RAM KRISHNA NAGAR DIST- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 78815 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B SINHA, Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE, GA, ASSAM,SC, AFDC BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 17.09.2025 Heard Shri B. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri J. Handique, learned State Counsel and Ms. G. Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department. 2. Office note dated 14.09.2023 reflects that service of notice upon the respondent no. 7 is complete. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that a plot of land measuring 31.59 acres was purchased by the predecessors of the petitioners by registered sale deeds. The said lands were under peaceful possession of the petitioners since the time of their predecessors. In the meantime, an area of 900 hectares has been settled in the name of Son Beel Meen Mahal in favour of the respondent no. 7 vide a communication dated 30.08.2021 issued by the Managing Director, AFDC Page No.# 4/5 whereafter the agents of the respondent no. 7 are trying to trespass over the land of the petitioners. It is the specific case of the petitioners that their lands have been wrongly included in the land settled in favour of the respondent no. 7. 4. Shri Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that a detail representation dated 08.11.2022 has been submitted before the concerned District Commissioner, Karimganj (presently Sribhumi) which has not been considered. 5. Shri J. Handique, learned State Counsel has submitted that since the dispute would be in the realm of factual dispute, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not have the expertise to give a definite finding, more so when the claim of the petitioners is disputed. He however is not opposed to a direction to the District Commissioner, Sribhumi to look into the matter and dispose of the representation in accordance with law. 6. The aforesaid submission is also endorsed by the learned counsel for the other official respondents. 7. This Court has noted that the petitioners have submitted a detail representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Sribhumi on 08.11.2022 and there are no materials on record to show that the aforesaid representation has been considered. The affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 3 on 14.11.2023 has however denied the rights of the petitioner. 8. On consideration of the same, this Court is of the opinion that a direction be issued to the District Commissioner, Sribhumi to take on board the representation dated 08.11.2022 and dispose of the same by a speaking order. Page No.# 5/5 While doing so, the petitioners including the other stake holders are required to be given a personal hearing. Such exercise be undertaken and completed expeditiously and preferably within an outer limit of 4(four) months from today. 9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant