Page No.# 1/14 GAHC010208302024 2026:GAU-AS:12581 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5164/2024 ON THE DEATH OF NEPAL CH DEY HIS LEGAL HEIR DAYAL CH DEY AGE 54 YRS, S/O- LATE NEPAL CH. DEY, R/O- BIRUBARI, P.O AND P.S- PALTAN BAZAR, DIST- KAMRUP METRO ASSAM, PIN-781001, REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER BISWAJIT BARUAH, AGE 48 YRS, S/O- LATE MANIK BARUAH, R/O- AKASH BLOCK, FLAT NO-201, SUBHAM HEIGHT, KAHILIPARA ROAD,' NEAR FORENSIC LABORATORY, KAHILIPRA, GUWAHATI-19, DIST-KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM. 2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI-01 3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER DISPUR REVENUE CIRCLE 4:ASHOK KUMAR GARODIYA S/O- SHYAM SUNDER GARODIYA R/O- VILLAGE DWARBANDHA Page No.# 2/14 MOUZA- BELTOLA GUWAHATI DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 5:SANTOSH GARODIYA S/O- SHYAM SUNDER GARODIYA R/O- VILLAGE DWARBANDHA MOUZA- BELTOLA GUWAHATI DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 6:DILIP GARODIYA S/O- SHYAM SUNDER GARODIYA R/O- VILLAGE DWARBANDHA MOUZA- BELTOLA GUWAHATI DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 7:SRI SUNIL KUMAR KEJRIWAL (ON THE DEATH OF SRI ROHITASH PRASAD AGARWALA S/O LATE MEMCHAND AGARWALA) HIS LEGAL HEIR SRI SUNIL KUMAR KEJRIWAL. R/O SRCB ROAD BELOW ALLAHABAD BANK FANCY BAZAR GUWAHATI- Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M J BARUAH, MR. A. ALI,MR. JITU SAIKIA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE, MR. N G KUNDU,MR. P K ROYCHOUDHURY,FOR CAVEATOR Linked Case : WP(C)/3090/2024 ON THE DEATH OF NEPAL CH DEY HIS LEGAL HEIRS DAYAL CH DEY S/O- LATE NEPAL CH. DEY R/O- BIRUBARI P.O AND P.S- PALTAN BAZAR Page No.# 3/14 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN-781001 (REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER BISWAJIT BARUAH S/O- LATE MANIK BARUAH R/O- AKASH BLOCK FLAT NO-201 SUBHAM HEIGHT KAHILIPARA ROAD NEAR FORENSIC LABORATORY KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM) VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM REVENUE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI-01 3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER DISPUR REVENUE CIRCLE P.O. AND P.S. -BASISTHA GUWAHATI DIST.- KAMRUP(METRO) ASSAM PIN- 781029. 4:ASHOK KUMAR GARODIYA S/O SHYAM SUNDER GARODIYA R/O- VILLAGE DWARANDHA Page No.# 4/14 MOUZA- BELTOLA GUWAHATI DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 5:SANTOSH GARODIYA S/O SHYAM SUNDER GARODIYA R/O- VILLAGE DWARANDHA MOUZA- BELTOLA GUWAHATI DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 6:DILIP GARODIYA S/O SHYAM SUNDER GARODIYA R/O- VILLAGE DWARANDHA MOUZA- BELTOLA GUWAHATI DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 7:SRI SUNIL KUMAR KEJRIWAL (ON THE DEATH OF SRI ROHITASH PRASAD AGARWALA S/O LATE MEMCHAND AGARWALA) HIS LEGAL HEIR SRI SUNIL KUMAR KEJRIWAL. R/O SRCB ROAD BELOW ALLAHABAD BANK FANCY BAZAR GUWAHATI-1 ------------ BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.J. Baruah, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. P.K.Roychoudhury, Sr. Advocate Mr. B.J. Talukdar, Sr. Advocate Mr. P.K. Medhi, Govt. Advocate Ms. G. Hazarika, Standing Counsel Mr. S. Ahmed, Advocate Page No.# 5/14 · Date on which Judgment was reserved : N/A · Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 27.08.2026 · Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative Part of the Judgment : No · Whether the full Judgment has been Pronounced : Yes JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. M.J. Baruah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in both the writ petitions. Ms. G. Hazarika, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 1; Mr. B.J. Talukdar, the learned Senior Government Advocate assisted by Mr. P.K. Medhi, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the State respondents; and Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Ahmed, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the private respondents. 2. Both the writ petitions are interconnected and accordingly, they are taken up for disposal by this common judgment and order. 3. The case of the petitioner herein is that vide the deed bearing Serial No. 4941 dated 16.03.1966 between Basistha Dewalaya represented by Sri Sanatan Sharma Doloy and the father of the Page No.# 6/14 petitioner, land admeasuring 4 Bighas covered by old Dag No. 205 was leased out for a period of 99 years. Subsequent thereto, in the mutation order reflected in the Sadar Jamabandi of Nisf Kheraj Patta No. 1, the said 4 Bighas of land contained in Dag No. 205 was mutated on the basis of purchase in the name of the father of the petitioner. It is also a matter of record that vide a deed bearing Serial No. 4597 dated 06.07.1962 between Basistha Dewalaya represented by Sri Sanatan Sharma Doloy and Rohitach Agarwalla and Shyam Sundar Garodia, a plot of land admeasuring 4 Bighas 3 Kathas 12 Lechas covered by Dag No. 202 (old) was leased out for a period of 99 years. 4. Subsequent thereto, the land in question was acquired under the Assam Religious and Charitable Institution of Public Nature Act, 1959 by the Government of Assam and 4 Bighas 3 Kathas 12 Lechas covered by Dag No. 202 which was obtained on lease for a period of 99 years by Rohitach Agarwalla and Shyam Sundar Garodia from Basistha Dewalaya was settled with Rohitach Agarwalla and Shyam Sundar Garodia on realization of premium and accordingly, the Settlement Officer was directed to correct the records vide the communication dated 21.11.1995. 5. It is very relevant to take note of that the petitioner's claim is Page No.# 7/14 qua Dag No. 205 and the claim of the private respondents is specifically in respect of Dag No. 202. 6. Prior to the filing of the present batch of writ petitions, the legal representatives of Shyam Sundar Garodia and Rohitesh Prasad Agarwalla filed a writ petition being WP(C) No. 5449/2019 and the writ petitioner in the present two writ petitions filed another writ petition being WP(C) No. 7184/2021. 7. It was the case of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 7184/2021 that the father's name of the petitioner was mysteriously removed from the record of rights, for which an application was filed before the Respondent Authorities. On the other hand, it was the case of the private respondents in the present batch of writ petitions in WP(C) No. 5449/2019 that a notice was issued by the Circle Officer dated 13.07.2018 making an inquiry into the lands of the private respondents. 8. This Court disposed of the said writ petitions vide a common order dated 17.02.2024. Paragraph Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the said order, being relevant, are reproduced hereinbelow: “8. From a perusal of the said notice, it reveals that in view of an application submitted by the father of the Petitioner i.e. late Nepal Chandra Page No.# 8/14 Dey seeking demarcation of the land, the Respondent Authorities have asked the Petitioners to appear before the said Circle Officer along with the necessary documents. It is the opinion of this Court that merely by asking the Petitioners to produce certain documents by an authority do not require any interference. Under such circumstances, it is the opinion of this Court that the question of setting aside the notice dated 13.07.2018 does not arise. 9. The Petitioners in WP(C) No.5449/2019 would be well advised to place the relevant documents before the Circle Officer, Dispur Revenue Circle in support of their claims. 10. Now coming to the writ petition i.e WP(C) No.7184/2021, it is seen that amongst the reliefs which have been sought for, one of such relief is that this Court should declare that the Petitioner is the owner of Dag No.205(old) in Nisf Kheraj Patta No.1/2 (new) in Village Dwarandha under Beltola Mouza and that the Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 are the owners of a plot of land measuring 4 Bighas 3 Kathas 12 Lechas covered by Dag No. 202(old) in Patta No.1/2 (new) in village Dwarandha, Mouza Beltola in the District of Kamrup. In the opinion of this Court, such a relief cannot be granted in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution and the Petitioner, if he desire such a relief for declaration, the same has to be done before the Civil Court. As regards the other two reliefs as sought for in the writ petition, it is seen that the Respondent Authorities are already taking up such action and in consequence thereof have issued notice dated 13.07.2018 which have been put to challenge in WP(C) No.5449/2019. Under such circumstances, it is the opinion of this Court that as the matter is pending before the Circle Officer, Dispur Revenue Circle, the Petitioner would be well advised to take appropriate steps before the said authority. 12. Taking into account the above, this Court therefore disposes of the both Page No.# 9/14 the writ petitions with the following observations and directions: (i) The notice dated 13.07.2018 impugned in WP(C) No.5449/2019 is not interfered with and the Petitioners would be well advised to approach the Circle Officer, Dispur Revenue Circle by placing the necessary documents as sought for. (ii) This Court is not inclined to issue any declaration as sought for in WP(C) No.7184/2021. However, it is observed that the rejection of the said prayer for issuance of declaration shall not preclude the Petitioners in both the writ petition to approach the competent Court of law seeking declarations, if need be. As regards the other reliefs, which have been sought for i.e. for demarcation as well as for correction of the records, the same being now be taken into consideration by the Circle Officer, Dispur Revenue Circle and this Court directs the Circle Officer, Dispur Revenue Circle to bring the said proceedings to a logical conclusion in accordance with law within a period of 6 (six) months from today. The Registry is directed to serve a copy of the instant order to Mr. H. Sarma, the learned Standing counsel for due compliance. (iii) This Court however would like to observe that the land claimed by the Petitioners in WP(C) No.5449/2019 arises out of Dag No.202 whereas the land which has been claimed by the Petitioner in WP(C) No.7184/2021 arises out of Dag No.205(old). This Court in the preceding segments of the instant order has categorically mentioned the various dags which were curved out of the above mentioned two dags. The Circle Officer, Dispur Revenue Circle shall duly take note of while deciding the said aspects. (iv) The interim order so passed earlier in WP(C) No.5449/2019 is vacated.” 9. From a perusal of the above directions passed by this Court, it Page No.# 10/14 is clear that this Court did not interfere with the notice dated 13.07.2018 which was issued to the private respondent and rather gave liberty to the petitioners in WP(C) No. 5449/2019 to approach the Circle Officer, Dispur Revenue Circle by placing the necessary documents sought for. 10. Insofar as the relief which was sought for by the present petitioner in WP(C) No. 7184/2021, this Court categorically held that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the question of granting any declaration to the petitioner in respect of the petitioner's rights over Dag No. 205 cannot be made and the petitioner was granted the liberty to approach the Civil Court seeking appropriate declarations. However, insofar as the relief sought for demarcation as well as correction of the records, this Court directed the Circle Officer, Dispur Revenue Circle to bring the said proceedings to a logical conclusion in accordance with law within a period of 6 months from the date of the said order. 11. Pursuant thereto, the order dated 01.06.2024 was passed by the Circle Officer, Dispur Revenue Circle which is assailed in WP(C) No. 5164/2024. 12. Further to that, it is noticed that on account of construction Page No.# 11/14 being carried out by the private respondents and as the demarcation proceedings were claimed to be not complete, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court seeking various directions which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No. 3090/2024. The learned Coordinate Bench of this Court issued notice vide an order dated 19.07.2024. 13. During the pendency of the writ petition being WP(C) No. 3090/2024, the order of the Circle Officer dated 01.06.2024 which was passed prior to the filing of the writ petition was brought to the notice of this Court on 21.08.2024 and resultantly, the petitioner filed the second writ petition being WP(C) No. 5164/2024 challenging the order dated 01.06.2024. 14. This Court has perused the order dated 01.06.2024 which is impugned in WP(C) No. 5164/2024. Further to that, pursuant to the orders passed by this Court on 21.04.2026 and 03.08.2026, an affidavit was filed by the Circle Officer, Dispur Revenue Circle which is also duly perused. 15. Upon reading the impugned order dated 01.06.2024 conjointly with the affidavit filed by the Circle Officer, it transpires therefrom that from old Dag No. 205 various Dags were created during the Page No.# 12/14 recent settlement operation. They were Dag Nos. 2337, 2338, 2341, 2342, 2345, 2346, 2350 and 2391. It is also relevant to observe that Dag No. 2356 was at a later stage renumbered from Dag No. 2341. The trace map pursuant to the settlement operation was enclosed as Annexure-A. 16. This Court has also taken note that Dag No. 202 is completely distinct from Dag No. 205. Though the southern boundary of Dag No. 202 is Dag No. 205, the land of the private respondents which was initially settled as Dag No. 202 was subsequently renumbered pursuant to the settlement operation as Dag Nos. 2657 and 2658. 17. In the backdrop of the above, if this Court now takes note of Annexure-B to the said affidavit filed by the Circle Officer which are the record of rights, i.e., the Jamabandi, in respect of Dag No. 202 as well as the new Dags which were created pursuant to the settlement operation, and similarly Dag No. 205 along with the new Dags so created pursuant to the settlement operation, it would show that neither the petitioner nor the petitioner's predecessor's name appears in the record of rights of Dag No. 205 or its new Dags so created. The impugned order dated 01.06.2024 also provides the details which corresponds to the trace map. From the above, it is apparent that the lands of the private respondents Page No.# 13/14 are clearly identifiable by the boundaries mentioned in the impugned order, except that on the north where instead of Dag No. 2327, it should have been Dag No. 2326. 18. Taking into account the above, this Court is of the opinion that the common order dated 17.02.2024 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 5449/2019 and WP(C) No. 7184/2021 has been duly complied with inasmuch as, as regards the dispute concerning the identification of the land of the private respondents, the same had been clearly identified. 19. The trace map enclosed as Annexure-A to the affidavit filed by the Circle Officer also makes it clear which are the Dags which were created from the original Dag No. 205 and the copy of the Jamabandis enclosed also shows the names of the persons mutated against the said new Dags so created from Dag No. 205 in question. These persons are not parties to the present proceedings. 20. In view of the above, this Court disposes of both the writ petitions with the following observations and directions: (i) The impugned order dated 01.06.2024 does not call for any interference. Page No.# 14/14 (ii) The materials on record clearly show that the land of the private respondents is distinct and identifiable in the revenue records. (iii) The various Dags which have been created from Dag No. 205 have been mutated in the names of other persons other than the private respondents. (iv) The relief sought for by the petitioner in both the writ petitions stands rejected. (v) The rejection of the reliefs in the present writ petitions shall not preclude or prejudice the petitioner from approaching the competent Court of civil jurisdiction seeking appropriate declarations and consequential reliefs qua those persons whose names have been inserted in the various Dags which were created pursuant to the settlement operation from Dag No. 205. (vi) No costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Digitally signed by Satyam Sharma Date: 2026.09.02 07:15:57 +05'30'