Page No.# 1/13 GAHC010223742023 2026:GAU-AS:4413- DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/433/2023 BALESWAR RANGPI AND ANR. S/O LATE PRABHAT RANGPI, R/O VILL. DEOCHATAL, MOUZA RAMCHARANI, GUWAHATI, P.S. AZARA, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM. 2: SUKLESWAR RANGPI S/O LATE PRABHAT RANGPI R/O VILL. DEOCHATAL MOUZA RAMCHARANI GUWAHATI P.S. AZARA DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM VERSUS ON THE DEATH OF BAHAR ALI HIS LEGAL HEIRS GOLAYA BEGUM AND ORS W/O LATE BAHAR ALI, R/O GANDHIBASTI, ISLAMPUR, P.S. CHANDMARI, GUWAHATI 781003, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM. 2:HOOR E BAHAR D/O LATE BAHAR ALI R/O GANDHIBASTI ISLAMPUR P.S. CHANDMARI GUWAHATI 781003 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM. 3:NOOR E BAHAR D/O LATE BAHAR ALI R/O GANDHIBASTI ISLAMPUR Page No.# 2/13 P.S. CHANDMARI GUWAHATI 781003 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM. 4:SHEMIM BAHAR D/O LATE BAHAR ALI R/O GANDHIBASTI ISLAMPUR P.S. CHANDMARI GUWAHATI 781003 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM. 5:JESHMINE BAHAR S/O LATE BAHAR ALI R/O GANDHIBASTI ISLAMPUR P.S. CHANDMARI GUWAHATI 781003 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM. 6:THE ASSAM BOARD OF REVENUE GUWAHATI Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R SARMA, MS. S D SAIKIA,MS DIPALI DUTTA Advocate for the Respondent : MR. M MONDAL, MS. R B BORA, GA, ASSAM,MR. A C SARMA,FOR CAVEATOR Page No.# 3/13 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 24.03.2026 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. G. Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1.1 to 1.5 and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Sr. Govt. Advocate for respondent no.2. 2. By filing this intra-court appeal, the appellants, who were the writ petitioner in WP(C) 49/2011, have assailed the judgment and order dated 29.08.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in the said writ petition. 3. The effect of the said order is that no infirmity was found in respect of judgment and order dated 11.05.2007, passed by the learned Assam Board of Revenue in Case No.117 RA(K)/2004 as well as order dated 16.06.2009, passed in Case No.13RA(K) (RVW)/2007. 4. The facts of the case, in brief, is that : (i) One Prabhat Rangpi (since deceased) was a tenant under late Md. Hussain, who was the landlord of a cultivable plot of land measuring 4 Bighas, covered by K.P Patta No.100, Dag No.14(old)/703(New) of Village – Pamohi under Mouza – Ramcharani, in the district of Kamrup (M), Assam, as it was then. (ii) It is projected that during his lifetime, the aforesaid tenant used to pay a regular compensation in respect of one-fifth of the Page No.# 4/13 produce of his land cultivated by himself and accordingly, Khatian No.54 was issued in his name. (iii) After his death, it is projected that the appellants, namely, Shri Baleswar Rangpi and Shri Sukleswar Rangpi had applied for mutation by virtue of inheritance and accordingly, by an order dated 19.08.1995, the names of the petitioners were entered into Ryoti Khatian and the corrections were made on 08.07.1997. (iv) It was projected that during his lifetime, their predecessor- in-interest was paying the compensation (Chukani) from time to time to Md. Bahar Ali, who, on receipt of the same, acknowledged receipt. (v) The appellants filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Guwahati as it was then, for ownership right and accordingly, Case No.66/1995 was registered and the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Guwahati, by an order dated 29.09.1995, granted ownership right in favour of the appellants by directing that a sum of Rs.146/-, as compensation be deposited in the Treasury, which was complied with. (vi) The respondent no.1, namely, Mohammed Bahar Ali, the owner of the land preferred an appeal before the Assam Board of Revenue against the order dated 29.09.1995. The said learned Board by its judgment and order dated 14.03.1997, was pleased to set aside the order dated 29.09.1995 and remanded the matter back Page No.# 5/13 to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup for re-examination of the matter. (vii) Upon remand, both the contesting sides examined the witnesses. The appellants had examined three witnesses and the respondent no.1 examined two witnesses and also filed some documents. (viii) The learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, by an order dated 07.09.2004, upheld the earlier ex-parte order dated 29.09.1995, thereby, granting ownership rights in respect of the land in favour of the appellants. (ix) The respondent no.1 again preferred an appeal before the Assam Board of Revenue, which was registered as Case No.117RA(K)/2004, which was allowed by judgment and order dated 11.05.2007. (x) It may be mentioned that it is not in dispute rather, it is admitted by the appellants that the original land owner was Md. Hussain Ali. (xi) It was the projected case of the respondent no.1 that he is suffering from permanent physical disability and therefore, owing to such disability, the said land is exempted from acquisition of ownership of rights and intermediary rights by tenants under Section 21 of the Assam (Temporary Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971. Moreover, the projected case of the respondent no.1 was that at the relevant time when the application seeking ownership rights was Page No.# 6/13 filed, the said land was not a cultivable land and accordingly, it was claimed that the provision of Section 23 of the said 1971 Act cannot be made applicable in favour of the appellants so as to entitled them acquisition of ownership rights or intermediary rights over the land of respondent no.1. (xii) Be that as it may, the Assam Board of Revenue, while setting aside the order dated 29.09.1995, by its order dated 14.03.1997, took note of the fact that the respondent no.1 had claimed that he is Mohammed Bahar Ali and not Bahadur Ali, the name that was recorded as landlord in respect of his land and that the certified copy of the registered sale deed discloses the name of the respondent no.1 as Bahar Ali, Son of Taiyab Ali and not Bahadur Ali, as recorded in the tenancy records. It was also observed that the appellants, in their application for acquisition of ownership rights had never stated that their father Prabhat Rangpi has expired, conferring heritable rights of tenancy to the appellants and the learned Assam Board of Revenue, Assam further took note of the provisions of Section 23 of the 1971 Act, requiring exemption from acquisition of rights and accordingly, the case was remanded back to the learned Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup for re-examination afresh and disposal of the petition, praying for ownership rights strictly in accordance with the provisions of law and in view of the facts and legal points discussed at paragraph 4 to 10 of the order. (xiii) The contents of the order after remand dated 07.09.2004 is quoted herein below : Page No.# 7/13 The record is produced. Both parties are present. As per order of Hon’ble Assam Board of Revenue dated 17.02.1996 in ABR 188 RA(K) in connection order date 29.09.95 of case No.66/95, the notice is served to both the parties for enquiry and re-examination. Notice is served and the same is in record. The report of the Circle Officer is perused. Both parties are examined and their learned counsels submitted the written arguments. Treasury challan No.44 of 13.10.95 is perused. The Ryoti is in physical possession with final khatian. On examination of all sides the order dated 29.09.95 passed earlier is upheld. Let the said order be published in the Assam Gazette. Let notice be issued to the parties. (ix) Aggrieved by the said order of 07.09.2004, again a revenue appeal was preferred before the Assam Board of Revenue, which was registered as Case No.117RA(K)/2004, which was decided by judgment and order dated 11.05.2007, thereby interfering with and setting aside the order dated 07.09.2004. (x) The aggrieved appellants filed a review petition which was registered before the Assam Board of Revenue as Case No.13RA(K) (RVW)/2007, which was dismissed by judgment and order dated 16.06.2009. (xi) Accordingly, both the said hereinbefore referred orders dated 11.05.2007 and 16.06.2009, passed by Assam Board of Revenue were put to challenge by filing a writ petition which was registered as WP(C)/49/2011. 5. The learned Single Judge, after thoroughly examining all the materials available and on perusal of the records called for from the Assam Board of Page No.# 8/13 Revenue, had meticulously dealt with all the points raised and found that the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup(M), Guwahati by passing order dated 07.09.2004, did not consider any of the directions or observations contained in paragraph nos. 4 to 10 of the earlier order dated 14.03.1997, passed by the Assam Board of Revenue in Case No.188RA (K)/1995. Moreover, the Additional Deputy Commissioner had also not considered the issues which arise out of Sections 21 and 23 of the 1971 Act, in view of the claim of respondent no.1 regarding his physical disability, which was an exception covered under Section 21 of the 1971 Act to exempt land belonging to physically challenged person from acquisition under Chapter VI of the 1971 Act. 6. Resultantly, applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and Anr. Vs. Bikartan Das and Ors., reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 996, discussed the power of the Court while exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction for issuing a writ of certiorari, prohibiting substitution of its own views for those of the Tribunals. Moreover, the learned Single Judge invoked the cardinal principle that even if some action or order challenged is found to be legal and invalid, the Court would exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction with a view to doing substantial justice between the parties. 7. The learned Single Judge also took note of the fact that nothing could be shown that the Assam Board of Revenue did not have the jurisdiction to pass the orders referred above. Resultantly, rejecting the photographs of the land presented, the writ petition was dismissed. Thereby, finding no infirmity with the judgment and order dated 11.05.2007, passed by the Assam Board of Revenue in Case No.117 RA(K)/2004 as well as judgment and order dated 16.06.2009 Page No.# 9/13 passed in Case No.13RA(K)(RVW)/2007. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants by referring to the materials available on record and made in his submissions to support the challenge to the impugned judgment and order dated 25.07.2023 and per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1.1 to 1.5 has made in his submissions to support the impugned judgment and order. 9. From the documents annexed to this memo of appeal, it is noticed that the appellants have annexed a photocopy of a handwritten note dated 24.12.1982, purportedly showing payment of compensation (chukani) to the landlord by way of paddy for the year 1980, 1981 and 1982, totalling 5 mun paddy. Incidentally, the receipt dated 24.12.1982 disclose that it was purportedly signed by Mohammed Bahar Ali, the original respondent no.1, who in the meantime has expired and his legal heirs have been substituted as respondent nos.1.1 to 1.5. In the khatian, however, the name of the landlord is referred to as Md. Bahadur Ali. 10. It is further evident from the order dated 10.10.1995, passed in Ryoti Case No.66/95/1408/10 dated 10.10.1995 that the appellants, in the application for acquisition of ownership right, had impleaded one Md. Bahadur Ali, Son of Toiyub Ali of Gandhibasti, Islampur as the sole respondent. Thus, Md. Bahar Ali was not arrayed as respondent in the proceeding before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup. 11. There is nothing on record to show that although the name of the respondent in the said proceedings was Md. Bahadur Ali, notice was served to Mohammed Bahar Ali. However, the said original respondent no.1 had appeared Page No.# 10/13 before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, after remand of Ryoti Case No.66/90/435-437. 12. On a perusal of the Annexure-19 to this memo of appeal, which is the order dated 07.09.2004, passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, upon remand order passed by the Assam Board of Revenue, it is noticed that though the order of remand was passed on 14.03.1997 in Case No. 188 RA(K)/95, but the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup(M), Guwahati has made reference to the order dated 17.02.1996, passed by the Assam Board of Revenue in ABR 188/RA(K). The learned counsel for the petitioners could not show any document on record by which we could refer to 17.02.1996 order of the Assam Board of Revenue. 13. Be that as it may, the remand order was passed by judgment and order dated 14.03.1997 by the Assam Board of Revenue and the said judgment and order was never taken into consideration by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, which the said authority was duty bound to consider and comply. 14. Resultantly, the directions contained to consider discussions at paragraph 4 to 10 of the judgment and order dated 14.03.1997, passed by the Assam Board of Revenue was also not complied with. Moreover, the appellants’ side had examined three witnesses and the respondent no.1 had examined two witnesses. However, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup(M), Guwahati has merely referred to examination of both parties, but there is no discussion about the number of witnesses examined or about their evidence at all. Despite, the specific projection by the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants that his name was Md. Bahar Ali and not Mohammad Bahadur Ali, yet the Page No.# 11/13 Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup(M), Guwahati has still recorded in its order dated 07.09.2004 that notice was served. There is no finding as to the person on whom the notice was served. Moreover, when the matter was remanded, it was obligatory on the part of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup(M), Guwahati to hear both sides and could not have taken the service of notice as accepted and to omit discussion on the evidence available before the said authority. Therefore, the Court is of the considered opinion that the order dated 07.09.2004, passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup(M), Guwahati in Ryoti Case No.66/19/435-437 is absolutely perverse, non-speaking and passed in total disregard and disobedience to the appellate order dated 14.03.1997, passed by the Assam Board of Revenue. 15. Although, the learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously submitted that notice was duly served, but the manner in which the notice was served on Md. Bahadur Ali instead of Md. Bahar Ali, vitiates the service of notice in light of the appellants’ own admission that the chukani was paid not to Md. Bahadur Ali but to Md. Bahar Ali. 16. Therefore, the appellants’, with full knowledge that their landlord was not Md. Bahadur Ali, allowed the proceedings to continue with Md. Bahadur Ali as the respondent. Even if, notice was served on Md. Bahar Ali, stating him to be Md. Bahadur Ali, it was not obligatory on part of Md. Bahar Ali to appear in proceedings which does not reflect his correct name. 17. Resultantly, the proceedings of Ryoti Case No.66/95, which had culminated by order dated 20.09.1995 , passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Guwahati is found to be vitiated by fraud as the proceedings could not have been allowed to proceed against a non-party, Page No.# 12/13 namely, Md. Bahadur Ali. 18. Resultantly, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, having disobeyed the judgment and order dated 14.03.1997, passed by the Assam Board of Revenue in Case No. 188 RA(K)/95, the said order dated 07.09.2004 was rightly set aside by the Assam Board of Revenue dated 11.05.2005, passed in Case No.117 RA(K)/2004 as well as judgment and order dated 16.06.2009, passed by the learned Assam Board of Revenue in Case No.13RA(K) (RVW)/2007. Moreover, the fraud that was committed in the original proceeding of Ryoti Case No.66/95, is held to have been extended to the remanded proceedings of Ryoti Case No.66/95, which culminated in order dated 07.09.2004 because the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup had accepted that notice was duly served, without giving any finding that on whom the notice was served. Moreover, by disobeying the appellate order of Assam Board of Revenue, the order dated 07.09.2004 is nothing but a mockery of the due process of law. 19. Resultantly, the Court is of the considered opinion that appellants have not been able to make out any case for this Appellate Bench to take a view contrary to what has been taken by the learned Single in the judgment and order dated 29.08.2023, passed in WP(C) 49/2011. 20. Resultantly, the said judgment and order dated 29.08.2023, stands affirmed. 21. Before parting with the records, it is clarified that in this order reference at several places has been made to the original respondent no.1, namely, Mohammed Bahar Ali, who in the meantime has expired and has been Page No.# 13/13 duly substituted by respondent nos.1.1 to 1.5. 22. The interim order passed on 29.11.2023, directing to maintain status quo as on that date, which has been extended from time to time, stands vacated. 23. There shall be no orders as to cost. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant