Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010287502025 2026:GAU-AS:10628 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/321/2026 SRI ASHOK KR. BORO S/O- LATE RATAN KACHARI, R/O - HOUSE NO 548, A.K DEV ROAD, VILL - DATALPARA , P.O AND P.S - FATASIL AMBARI, GUWAHATI- 781025, DISTRICT- KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006. 2:THE CO -DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KAMRUP (METRO) GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN-781001. 3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER DISPUR REVENUE CIRCLE DISPUR GUWAHATI-786006. 4:MR RUBEN RAMESH CHOUDHURY SON OF- LATE RAMESH CHANDRA CHOUDHURY RESIDENT OF K.R.B ROAD P.O AND P.S- BHARALUMUKH GUWAHATI-78100 Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. PK Basu Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. H Sarma Govt. Advocate, Assam Ms. P Baruah for respondent No.4 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 31.07.2026 Heard Mr. PK Basu, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Ms. PR Mahanta, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the respondent No.1; Mr. H. Sharma the learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Ms. P Baruah, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the respondent No.4. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the various notices issued from time to time, and the last of which is the notice dated 03.12.2025 in connection with Boundary Case No.49/2025. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner categorically submits that the dispute as regards the title and possession over the land in question, which is the subject matter of Boundary Case No.49/2025 was earlier pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.3, Kamrup in Title Suit No.95/2007. The said suit being Title Suit No.95/2007, which was filed by the predecessor-in- interest of the respondent No.4 against the petitioner was disposed of by the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2014, wherein it was held that the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent No.4, was entitled to the declaration Page No.# 3/4 of their right, title, and interest over the suit land i.e. Schedule B Land. However, there were no consequential directions to disturb the possession of the defendants therein. 3. It has been further submitted that being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2014 passed in Title Suit No.95/2007, Appeals have been filed before this Court by both the petitioner as well as the respondent No.4. The petitioner's appeal has been registered as RFA No.55/2015, whereas the appeal filed by the respondent No. 4 has been registered and numbered as RFA No.51/2016 and both the Appeals are presently pending. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, therefore, submitted that when the dispute pertaining to right, title, interest as well as possession is presently pending before this Court in the two First Appeals, the very continuation of the Boundary Case No.49/2025 is an abuse of the process of law. 5. Ms. P Baruah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4, who categorically submitted that the Boundary Case No.49/2025 pertains to a plot of land admeasuring 9 bighas 4 lechas lechas bearing Dag No.5211 of E.B. Patta No.959 of Village Fatasil under Beltola Mouza. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4 further submitted that what is being sought in Boundary Case No.49/2025 is only limited to demarcating the boundaries and not to interfere with the possession of either of the parties. 6. This Court has given an anxious consideration of the respective submissions and it is the opinion of this Court that when there are Appeal proceedings pending before this Court being RFA No.55/2015, and RFA No.51/2016, without taking the leave of the Court in those proceedings, the Revenue Authorities Page No.# 4/4 cannot proceed with the Boundary Case No.49/2025, inasmuch as, the same may impact the adjudication of the RFA No.55/2015, and RFA No.51/2016. It is also the opinion of this Court that if any demarcation is required, pending disposal of those Appeals, this Court should be duly informed. 7. Under such circumstances, it is, therefore, the opinion of this Court that proceedings before the Boundary Case No.49/2025 cannot be proceeded with by the Circle Officer, Dispur Revenue Circle unless permitted by this Court in RFA No.51/2016 (the Appeal filed by the respondent No.4 herein). 8. Ms. P Baruah, the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submitted that appropriate applications would be filed in the Appeal proceedings. It is observed that the observations so made in the instant order shall not impact the adjudication of such application, if so filed in RFA No.51/2016. 9. The instant writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of thereby directing the respondent No.3 not to proceed with Boundary Case No.49/2025, unless and until leave is taken from this Court in RFA No.51/2016. 10. No costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant