Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010203212026 2026:GAU-AS:13784 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5077/2026 JAINUDDIN SHEIKH ALIAS JOYNUDDIN AND 2 ORS SON OF LATE DESAM UDDIN SHEIKH ALIAS DESA MUDDIN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - ALOMGANJ PART-V, P.O. ALOMGANJ, P.S. GAURIPUR, DISTRICT - DHUBRI, ASSAM. 2: ABDUL HAMID SON OF LATE DESAM UDDIN SHEIKH ALIAS DESA MUDDIN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - ALOMGANJ PART-V P.O. ALOMGANJ P.S. GAURIPUR DISTRICT - DHUBRI ASSAM 3: KAZI NAZRUL ISLAM SON OF LATE MONIR UDDIN SK. RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - ALOMGANJ PART-V P.O. ALOMGANJ P.S. GAURIPUR DSIT- DHUBRI ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, F BLOCK, IST FLOOR. ASSAM SECRETARIAT CIVIL, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN 781006. 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DHUBRI P.O. AND DISTRICT - DHUBRI ASSAM. PIN 783301. Page No.# 2/4 3:THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER (REVENUE) DHUBRI P.O. AND DISTRICT - DHUBRI ASSAM. PIN 783301. 4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER GAURIPUR REVENUE CIRCLE DIST DHUBRI ASSAM PIN 783331 Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. S ROY, MS DHRITI HAZARIKA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, REVENUE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER 16.09.2026 Heard Ms. S. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department, Government of Assam for the respondent no. 1; and Mr. N. Goswami, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court by the present writ petition on the ground that the petitioner no. 1 has been served with a Notice dated 25.08.2026 alleging that the petitioner no. 1-noticee is in unauthorized occupation of a Government land, covered by Dag no. 370 and Dag no. 337, at Village – Alomganj Part-V, Gouripur Revenue Circle, District – Dhubri, Assam. According to the petitioners, their predecessor-in-interest was one Late Moyna Bewa, wife of Late Dessamuddin. Late Dessamuddin is the father of the petitioner no. 1 and the petitioner no. 2. The petitioner no. 3 is a grandson of Late Dessamuddin. 3. The case of the petitioners is that Late Moyna Bewa was recognized as a rayat in respect of a parcel of land under old Dag no. 81 and Patta no. 101 and that parcel of land is in possession of the family of the petitioners since long. A kutcha patta was also issued to Page No.# 3/4 that effect. The parcel of land which was earlier within Dag no. 81 and Patta no. 101, have now been brought within a new Dag no. 337. It is, thus, contended that there is no reason for the Additional District Commissioner [Revenue], Dhubri to serve the impugned Notice dated 25.08.2026 terming the petitioners as unauthorized occupants in respect of the parcel of land under Dag no. 337. 4. Mr. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department, Government and Mr. Goswami, learned Junior Government Advocate have conjointly submitted that in response to the impugned Notice dated 25.08.2026, the petitioners have already submitted their Representation before the respondent no. 3 on 03.09.2026 giving the reasons as to why they should not be termed as unauthorized occupants. They have fairly submitted that as some of the grounds raised in this writ petition, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, are not agitated in the Representation dated 03.09.2026 [Annexure-XI to the writ petition], the petitioners may raise those grounds before the respondent no. 3. They have further submitted that as the Representation already submitted by the petitioner on 03.09.2026 and the additional Representation, if any, submitted by the petitioners, would be given due consideration by the respondent no. 3 vis-à-vis the aspects mentioned in the impugned Notice dated 25.08.2026, the writ petition may be disposed of allowing the petitioners to submit an additional Representation before the respondent no. 3 if they want to raise some additional grounds before the respondent no. 3 for consideration, before conclusion of hearing. 5. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the projections made in this writ petition, this Court is of the considered view that to adjudicate on the claims made by the petitioners, and the counter claims made by the respondent authorities, questions of facts would fall for determination, which is ordinarily not to be adjudicated in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. As against the petitioners’ contention that they are in occupation of the parcel of land within Dag no. 337 on the strength of raiyoti khatian vis-à-vis the allegation made against them as unauthorized occupants of Government khas land, the respondent no. 3 can arrive at determination of such disputed questions of fact, on the basis of relevant revenue records and the materials placed Page No.# 4/4 before him by the contesting parties. 6. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that instead of keeping his writ petition pending, the same can be disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 3 to take into consideration the grounds raised by the petitioners in the Representation dated 03.09.2026 as well as the additional grounds, if any, raised by the petitioners in an additional Representation, which is to be filed by the petitioners before the respondent no. 3 within a period of ten days from today. After affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners and the other stakeholders, the respondent no. 3 shall bring the proceeding initiated by the impugned Notice dated 25.08.2026 into finality by passing a speaking order. It is accordingly ordered. The speaking order to be passed, is to be communicated to the petitioners immediately thereafter. It is further observed that if for any reason, the petitioners find the speaking order to be prejudicial to their interests, there shall not be any coercive action against the petitioners for a period of one month from the date of passing of the speaking order. It is needless to observe that if the petitioners are aggrieved in any manner by the speaking order to be passed, they would be at liberty to avail appropriate remedy as permissible under the law. 7. This order disposes of the writ petition. No cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant