Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010067502020 2026:GAU-AS:11729 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2106/2020 ABDUL WAHAB S/O- LATE HARAB UDDIN, VILL- KOREA PART-I, P.O- JOGIGHOPA, P.S- JOGIGHOPA, DIST- BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 783382 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GHY- 06 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM REVENUE AND SETTLEMENT DEPTT DISPUR GHY- 06 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN- 783380 4:THE SETTLEMENT OFFICER BONGAIGAON (ASSAM) PIN- 783380 5:THE CIRCLE OFFICER BOITAMARI REVENUE CIRCLE DIST- BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN- 78338 For the Applicant (s) : Mr. M. U. Mondal, Advocate Page No.# 2/4 For the Respondent (s) : Mr. N. Das, Govt. Advocate BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH O R D E R 17.08.2026 Heard Mr. M. U. Mondal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Mr. N. Das, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondents. 2. The case of the Petitioner herein is that the Petitioner is the absolute owner of the land admeasuring 1 bigha covered by Dag No.179 (part) of Patta No.125 at village Korea Part-I within the Boitamari Revenue Circle of Boitamari village in the district of Bongaigaon, Assam. 3. It is the case of the Petitioner that the said 1 bigha of land is a part of 3 bighas 3 kathas 7 lechas which is contained in the total Dag No.179 of Patta No.125. The Petitioner has sought for demarcation of the 1 bigha of land before the Circle Officer, Boitamari Revenue Circle by the application filed on 22.01.2020. On account of the inaction on the part of the Respondent No.5, the present writ petition was filed by the Petitioner seeking Page No.# 3/4 appropriate writ direction and order. 4. This Court vide an order dated 22.01.2021, issued notice. 5. Mr. N. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 submitted that the Petitioner has sought for demarcation without seeking any partition amongst the other pattadars. In addition to that, the Petitioner has also not taken the permission of the other co-pattadars or even made them parties to the instant proceedings. 6. In the instant case, it is seen from the Annexure-1 is the Periodic Khiraj Patta. The Petitioner's name is included in the Dag No.179 of Patta No.125. The said Patta contains 3 bighas 3 kathas 7 lechas of land out of which the Petitioner claims that he is the owner of 1 bigha of land. 7. From the materials on record, it is seen that there is no partition amongst the various pattadars which would show that the Petitioner is the owner of 1 bigha of land. Therefore, from the documents, it cannot be discerned that the Petitioner is the owner of 1 bigha of land. 8. Consequently, this Court therefore cannot direct a demarcation to be carried out by the Respondent No.5 without the Petitioner seeking for partition. 9. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the writ Page No.# 4/4 petition for which the writ petition stands dismissed. 10. Before parting with the record, this Court however observes that the dismissal of the writ petition shall not preclude or prejudice the Petitioner to file appropriate applications seeking partition of the land, and thereupon, after the partition is carried out by the Revenue Authorities, to seek demarcation of the land. JUDGE Comparing Assistant