Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010057172025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/35/2025 BROJEN KAKOTY S/O- CHANDARDHAR KAKOTY, R/O- MG ROAD, MELACHAKAR, P.O SIVASAGAR, DIST- SIVASAGAR, ASSAM, PIN- 785640 VERSUS SMTI. MADHUMITA SINGHA AND ANR D/O- SUREN PRASAD SINGHA, R/O- WARD NO. 8, GOLAGHAT TOWN, P.O AND P.S- GOLAGHAT, DIST- GOLAGHAT, ASSAM. P/R/A H. NO. 144, 3RD BYE LANE, MALIGAON, P.O.- MALIGAON, P.S.- JALUKBARI, DIST - KMARUP (M), ASSAM, PIN-781011 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GOLAGHAT DIST- GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN-78562 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. C BORUAH, MR. R BORO,MR A BORUAH Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM (R2), BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 19.03.2025 Heard Mr. C. Boruah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Additional Advocate General of Assam cum Senior Advocate for Page No.# 2/5 the State, respondent No. 2. 2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has put to challenge the correctness or otherwise of the order dated 05.03.2025, passed in Title Suit Case No. 43/2024 and the order dated 05.03.2025, passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 72/2024, by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Golaghat and prayed for setting aside and quashing the notice dated 11.03.2025, issued by the Circle Officer, Golaghat Revenue Circle. 3. It is to be noted here that vide order dated 05.03.2025, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Golaghat has dismissed the Title Suit Case No. 43/2024 and Misc. (J) Case No. 72/2024 filed by the present petitioner against the respondent No. 2, i.e. the State of Assam. 4. Mr. Boruah, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had instituted one title suit, being Title Suit No. 43/2024, before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Golaghat for (a) A decree of declaring right, title and interest over the suit premises; (b) A direction to stop demolition of the suit premises till realization of compensation by the plaintiff; (c) A decree of compensation of Rs. 5,00,500/- against the suit property; (d) A decree of permanent injunction over the suit property against the entrance, interference, dispossession, and destruction in any form upon the suit property made by the defendant No. 2; and Page No.# 3/5 (e) All cost of the suit. 4.1. Mr. Boruah further submits that the petitioner had also filed another application, under Order 39 Rules 1, 2 & 3 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. for granting of ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the opposite parties. But, the learned trial court without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, on the basis of oral submission made by the learned Government Advocate, had dismissed the petition against the petitioner. However, the learned trial court has provided that the Misc. Case shall proceed against the opposite party No. 1. Thereafter, the petitioner has received one notice from the Circle Officer, Golaghat Revenue Circle dated 11.03.2025, to vacate the land covering Patta No. 2548 and Dag No. 9098 within a period of 7 days. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this order by filing the present petition challenging the order dated 05.03.2025. 4.2. Mr. Boruah further submits that as the petitioner has never been given any opportunity of being heard and that the impugned order was passed in violation of principal of natural justice. It is the further submission of Mr. Boruah that though the learned trial court had held that as per Section 63 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, yet, the petitioner is person interested in the aforementioned plot of land acquired by the respondent No. 2 and he has a right to be heard in the matter and therefore, it is contended to set aside the impugned order dated 05.03.2025. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Mazumdar, learned Additional Advocate General fairly submits that the impugned order was passed cutting short the procedure of disposal of a case. According to Mr. Mazumdar, the learned trial court ought to have returned the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(D) of the C.P.C. or framed an preliminary issue on the maintainability of the suit as provided under Order 14 Rule 2 of the Page No.# 4/5 C.P.C. and as such, for being passed in contravention of law, the impugned order cannot sustain and therefore, the same may be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the learned trial court to adopt either of the aforementioned courses and thereafter, to pass a necessary order after giving opportunity of being heard to both the parties. 6. Mr. Mazumdar also submits that since public interest is involved in the aforementioned project, the interim order shall not be extended. 7. In reply, Mr. Borauh submits that unless the interim order is extended till a decision is taken by the learned trial court on the matter, the petitioner will be seriously prejudiced and therefore, it is contended to extend the same till the matter is decided by the learned trial court. 8. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also gone through the relevant provision under Order 7 Rule 11(D) and Order 14 Rule 2 of the C.P.C. and also perused the orders dated 05.03.2025. 9. It appears that the learned trial court without following the procedure prescribed in the aforementioned provision of law, directly dismissed the suit on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. And in doing so it has also afforded no opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and on such counts, the impugned order fails to withstand the legal scrutiny and therefore, the same stands set aside and quashed. Accordingly, the matter stands remanded to the learned trial court to either return the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(D) of the C.P.C. or to frame a preliminary issue on the maintainability of the suit as provided under Order 14 Rule 2 of the C.P.C. and thereafter, to decide the same after affording opportunity of being heard to both the parties. 10. Further, considering the element of public interest involved in the said Page No.# 5/5 project and also considering the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, this court is not inclined to extend the interim protection given vide order dated 17.03.2025. 11. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial court within a period of one week from today. 12. In terms of above, this petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant