Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010046542025 2025:GAU-AS:2523 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/78/2025 BIHUA CHETIA S/O- LATE THIRAI CHUTIA, R/O- CHAKARDHARA, DA-GAON, P.O- BORPATHARUWA, P.S- GOLAGHAT, DIST- GOLAGHAT, ASSAM, PIN- 785621 VERSUS THANESWAR CHUTIA S/O- LATE BHADRESWAR CHUTIA, R/O- DA-GAON, P.O- BORPATHARUWA, P.S- GOLAGHAT, DIST- GOLAGHAT, ASSAM, PIN-785621 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. K. Das, Advocate : Mr. R. Baruah, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : None appears. Date of Hearing : 07.03.2025 Date of Judgment : 07.03.2025 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. A. K. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution have Page No.# 2/6 been invoked by the petitioner challenging the order dated 13.02.2025 passed in Misc. (J) Case No.67/2024 by the learned Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Golaghat (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Executing Court’). The question arises as to whether this court should exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. 3. It is relevant to take note of that the respondent herein along with others as plaintiffs have filed a suit being Title Suit No.9/2023 before the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Golaghat seeking declaration of joint right, title and interest over the 2/3rd share of the land; a preliminary decree for partition of the suit land and thereupon a final decree on the basis of the report to be submitted by the Collector, Golaghat District or any Gazetted Officer subordinate of the Collector deputed by the Collector; for recovery of 2/3rd share in the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs by evicting the defendant from the said share holding and for permanent injunction. 4. It is seen that during the pendency of the said suit, there was a compromise between the plaintiff and the defendant and on the basis of which, an application was filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’). This petition was filed on 31.05.2023. On the basis of the said petition so filed, the learned Trial Court passed a compromise decree making the Petition No.2040/2023 filed on 31.05.2023 as a part of the decree. 5. From a perusal of the decree so passed on 31.05.2023, it is seen that there was a declaration given that the plaintiffs had 2/3rd share in the suit Page No.# 3/6 land admeasuring 1 Bigha 3 Kathas 16 Lechas covered by Dag No.1495 of K.P. Patta No.409 of village Chakardhora in Athgaon Mouza under Golaghat Revenue Circle. Additionally, the defendant who is the petitioner herein also had right, title and interest in respect of the remaining 1/3rd share of the suit land which admeasures 4 Kathas 9 Lechas covered by Dag No.1495 of K.P. Patta No.409 of village Chakardhora in Athgaon Mouza under Golaghat District. It was further decreed that the plaintiffs would recover the possession in respect to the land declared in favour of the plaintiffs and the defendant would retain the possession in respect to the land which have been declared in favour of the defendant. The defendant was also directed by the decree to deliver the possession of the land which was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. 6. On the basis of the said decree so passed, an application was filed on 25.08.2023 by one of the plaintiffs who is the respondent herein seeking execution of the judgment and decree dated 31.05.2023 passed in Title Suit No.9/2023. The record further reveals that the Revenue Authorities on the basis of the decree so passed on 31.05.2023 have taken certain steps towards partition of the said suit land. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Revenue Department of the Government of Assam was taking steps which was beyond the compromise decree and as such, filed an application under Section 47 of the Code before the learned Executing Court i.e. the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Golaghat in Title Execution Case No.03/2023 seeking appropriate direction that the decree be executed in terms with the compromise decree dated 31.05.2023. Page No.# 4/6 8. It is further seen that there was also another application filed under Section 151 of the Code for stay of the partition and allotment with regard to the execution of the compromise decree dated 31.05.2023 till the issues raised in the petition under Section 47 of the Code was resolved. To the said applications under Section 47 of the Code as well as the application under Section 151 of the Code, the decree holders have also submitted their written objections. 9. It is very relevant to take note of that the proceedings under Section 47 of the Code is still pending as would very much appear from the order dated 13.02.2025 whereby the learned Executing Court had fixed the proceedings under Section 47 for hearing and objection hearing. However, the application filed under Section 151 of the Code for directing the Circle Officer to ascertain the exact area of the land presently in possession of the judgment debtor was rejected on the ground that as from a perusal of Clauses (c), (d) and (f) of the Petition No.2040/2023 (the application seeking compromise decree), it was explicitly clear that the entire suit land was under the possession of the judgment debtor and as such, there was no necessity seeking a demarcation at that stage for which the said petition was rejected. It is under such circumstances, the present proceedings have been initiated. 10. It is very pertinent to observe that in the order dated 13.02.2025, the learned Executing Court made it clear that if circumstances or exigencies arise in future requiring the Court to have the commission for demarcation, etc., the Court would accordingly do the needful. 11. This Court has given an anxious consideration to the materials on Page No.# 5/6 record as well as perused the impugned order dated 13.02.2025. 12. From the materials on record and more particularly the compromise decree dated 31.05.2023, it is very clear that in respect to the same Dag Number and Patta Number, 2/3rd share of the suit land admeasuring 1 Bigha 3 Kathas 16 Lechas was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs along with direction issued for recovery of possession. However, there was also a decree that the defendant who is the petitioner herein would have right, title and interest in respect to 4 Kathas 9 Lechas of land in the same Dag and Patta Number and he would have the right to retain possession of the same. 13. It is further seen that neither in the applications so filed seeking compromise nor in the compromise decree, there is any schedule mentioned describing the boundaries of the land which the plaintiffs would have right, title and interest and would be entitled to recover possession. Similarly in respect to the defendant/petitioner herein also, there is no description of the land with specific boundaries. 14. It is the opinion of this Court that as the entitlement of the plaintiffs and the defendant have already been ascertained by the learned Trial Court, it is for the Collector in terms of Section 54 of the Code read with the provisions of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 to partition the land by metes and bounds. The settled principles of law also further envisage that once a revenue partition takes place, the report has to be submitted before the Executing Court and thereupon if there is a necessity, the Executing Court can proceed for the purpose of executing that part of the decree as regards recovery of possession by issuance of appropriate writ. Page No.# 6/6 15. The materials on record do not show that any report to that extent have been submitted. Be that as it may, if such report is submitted, then also it is for the Executing Court to execute the decree and not for the Revenue Authorities. 16. Consequently, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the order dated 13.02.2025 impugned in the instant proceedings more so when the learned Executing Court had categorically observed that if there is a need at a later stage, appropriate commission for demarcation etc. for the suit land would be issued. 17. In that view of the matter, the instant petition stands disposed and the learned Executing Court shall take appropriate steps in terms with the observations made hereinabove. JUDGE Comparing Assistant