Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010057222025 2025:GAU-AS:4183 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1582/2025 SARITA DEVI JAIN W/O- SRI SUSHIL KUMAR JAIN, R/O- A201, NEHA APARTMENT, BLOCK 2, ATHGAON, P.S- BHARALUMUKH, DIST- KAMRUP (METRO), GUWAHATI, ASSAM-781001 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT, SECRETARIAT, G.S. ROAD, GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN- 781006 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KAMRUP METROPOLITAN DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LICHUBAGAN HENGRBARI GUWAHATI ASSAM-781036 3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE REVENUE CIRCLE OFFICE ULUBARI GUWAHATI ASSAM- 781007 4:DEPUTY REGISTRAR (REGISTRATION) OFFICE OF SR. SUB REGISTRAR KAMRUP METROPOLITAN DISTRICT GUWAHATI ASSAM-781001 Page No.# 2/5 5:PRADIP KUMAR DAS P.N.G.B. ROAD SANTIPUR (HILL SIDE) DIST- KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI ASSAM-78100 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H AGARWAL, MR J SINGH Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE, GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 04.04.2025 Heard Mr. Ishaan Chhaya, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. G. Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue & Disaster Management Department for the respondent no. 1; and Mr. H. Sharma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4. 2. Learned counsel for the parties have advanced submissions on a number of issues. After extensive hearing, the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties have centered on the Order dated 08.03.2024 passed by the District Commissioner, Kamrup Metropolitan District, Guwahati [the respondent no. 2], impugned in this writ petition. In this writ petition, the petitioner has also challenged a report bearing no. KRN 11/2023 dated 12.12.2023 issued by the respondent no. 4 3. The impugned order dated 08.03.2024 reads as under :- ORDER Seen and perused the letter vide no. V/DCP[Crime]/GHTY/2024/119, dated 23.02.2024 received from the Deputy Commissioner of Police [Crime], Page No.# 3/5 Guwahati, Assam regarding Fake/Forged Land documents prepared by forgery and manipulation of original records and also by impersonation which were used subsequently for mutation of land by unscrupulous elements in their name depriving the genuine owners and requesting for review of such records and mutation. Whereas, it can be observed from the investigation report of the Bharalumukh Police Station vide Case no. 357/23 u/s 420/406/409/468/471/34 IPC, the Mutation Cases vide nos. [i] MET/GUW/2021-22/50809/OMUT, dated 20.10.2022 and [ii] RTPS-OMUT/2022/50502 [71387/2022-23/OMUT] done were fake. Therefore, I Sri Sumit Sattawan, IAS, District Commissioner, Kamrup metro District do hereby direct the Circle Officer, Guwahati Revenue Circle to cancel the Mutation Cases vide nos. [i] MET/GUW/2021-22/50809/OMUT, dated 20.10.2022 and [ii] RTPS-OMUT/2022/50502 [71387/2022-23/OMUT] immediately and report compliance. Inform all accordingly. [E-signed] District Commissioner, Kamrup Metropolitan District Guwahati 4. From the impugned order dated 08.03.2024, it is evident that by the order, two mutation orders [i] MET/GUW/2021-22/50809/OMUT, dated 20.10.2022 and [ii] RTPS- OMUT/2022/50502 [71387/2022-23/OMUT]. 5. The said two mutation orders were passed earlier in favour of the petitioner. 6. By the impugned order dated 08.03.2024, a direction has been made by the respondent no. 2 to the respondent no. 3 to effect the cancellation. Page No.# 4/5 7. One of the grounds of challenge to the impugned order dated 08.03.2024 is that the impugned order has been passed behind the back of the petitioner in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was never put to notice prior to passing the impugned order dated 08.03.2024. 8. When the writ petition was listed on 21.03.2025, the learned State counsel was requested to obtain instructions in writing from the respondent no. 2 whether before passing the impugned order dated 08.03.2024 the petitioner was put to any kind of notice or not. 9. Mr. Sharma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam has submitted that he has received instructions in the form of an Office Letter no. KRC [M] 14/2025/336 dated 02.04.2025 from the respondent no. 2. Placing a copy of the Office Letter no. KRC [M] 14/2025/336 dated 02.04.2025, Mr. Sharma has fairly submitted that before passing the impugned order dated 08.03.2024, the petitioner was not served with any notice. 10. From a mere look at the impugned order dated 08.03.2024, it is evident that due to the impugned order dated 08.03.2024, the petitioner is likely to be visited with adverse civil consequences. It is a settled proposition of law that any order likely to be passed against a person which is likely to bring adverse civil consequences to the person, must be passed following the principles of natural justice. The principles of natural justice demand that a person who is likely to be visited with adverse civil consequences because of an order to be passed, must be put on prior notice so as to afford an opportunity to the person to represent his/her case as to why the order sought to be passed, should not be passed against him/her. The same principle is applicable when an order passed earlier in favour of a person, is been contemplated to be interfered. 11. On the aforesaid count, the impugned order dated 08.03.2024 does not stand the scrutiny of law and it is accordingly, set aside and quashed. It is made clear that the impugned order dated 08.03.2024 has been set aside and quashed only for non-adherence to the principles of natural justice. It is further made clear that any consequential action taken on the basis of the impugned order dated 08.03.2024 will have the same bearing. Thus, the consequential action taken in respect of the Records of Right [Jamanbandi] shall have the Page No.# 5/5 same bearing. 12. It is further observed that in the event the respondent no. 2 would decide to proceed afresh on the matter, then the respondent no. 2 shall follow the principles of natural justice, by putting the petitioner on prior notice and by providing an effective and reasonable opportunity of being heard to her to present her case before the respondent no. 2. 13. With the observations made and the directions given above, the writ petition is allowed to extent indicted above. There shall, however, be no order as to cost. 14. The copy of the Office Letter no. KRC [M] 14/2025/336 dated 02.04.2025 placed by Mr. Sharma is kept as part of the record by marking it as Document – ‘X’. JUDGE Comparing Assistant