Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010239022023 2026:GAU-AS:2657 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6435/2023 RAJENDRA KUMAR DEKA S/O LATE SARAT CHANDRA DEKA R/O HOUSE NO. 27, JYOTI PATH (11TH BYLANE) LAKHIMI NAGAR, HATIGAON, GUWAHATI. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM SITUATED AT BLOCK-C, 3RD FLOOR, ASSAM SACHIVALAYA, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006 2:DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KAMRUP METROPOLITAN OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KAMRUP (M) AT LICHUBAGAN HENGRABARI GUWAHATI ASSAM-781036 3:DISPUR CIRCLE OFFICE OFFICE OF THE CIRCLE OFFICER NH 27 CHARALI KUNDIL NAGAR GUWAHATI ASSAM-781028 4:MANOJ KUMAR DEKA C/O MRS. DAMAYANTI DEKA Page No.# 2/5 BEHIND HOUSE NO. 7 AMRITPUR LANE GANESHGURI GUWAHATI-78100 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. D. Deka, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. H. Sarma, Addl. Sr. GA Mr. S. N. Krishnatraya, Advocate BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH O R D E R 20.02.2026 Heard Mr. D. Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. H. Sarmah, the learned counsel appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and Mr. S. K. Krishnatraya, the learned counsel appears for the respondent No.4. 2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court seeking various directions on account of certain information being not provided by the Public Information Officer under the Right to Information Act, 2005 inspite of there being a direction from the Appellate Authority to do so. 3. It is seen that pursuant to the filing of the instant writ petition, an affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.3, i.e. the Circle Officer, Dispur Revenue Circle. Paragraph 4 of the affidavit being relevant is reproduced herein under:- Page No.# 3/5 “4. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph No. 2 to 22 of the writ petition, the answering deponent respectfully states that as per the land record available in the circle office and Land Record staff report, it is seen that the land measuring about 3 Kathas 16.92 Lechas covered by Dag No. 280 of KP Patta No. 149 of village Dispur under Mouza Beltola was ejmali land and Late Sarat Ch. Deka was one of the co-pattadars of the land. That this answering deponent begs to state that as per record in jamabandi, after death of Late Sarat Ch. Deka, son of Sidheswar Deka, the land is mutated in favour of his legal heirs vide Mutation Case No.3382/2014-15 dated 07-08-2014 in the name of: - i) Smt. Damayanti Deka (Wife), ii) Sri Mohan Deka (Son) and iii) Sri Manoj Kr. Deka (Son). That as per record available it is seen that the said original Dag No. 280 has been partitioned vide Partition Case No. 2385/2014-15 dated 07- 07-2015 in the name of Sri Manoj Kumar Deka, son of Late Sarat Ch. Deka as a pattadar for the land measuring about 1 Katha 10 Lechas covered by Dag No. 280(Old)/925(New) of KP Patta No. 149(Old)/634(New) of village Dispur under Mouza Beltola. That as per Land Record Staff field verification report, it is found that there is an under-construction G+3 RCC building standing over the land of Sri Manoj Kr. Deka, son of Late Sarat Ch. Deka measuring about 1 Katha 10 Lechas covered by Dag No. 280(Old)/925(New) of KP Patta No. 149(Old)/634(New) of village Dispur under Mouza Beltola. And the remaining part of the land measuring about 2 Kathas 6.92 Lechas Page No.# 4/5 covered by Dag No. 280 of KP Patta No. 149 of village Dispur under Mouza Beltola, there is an old Assam type house standing thereon which is occupied by Smt. Damayanti Deka and another part of the house is occupied by Sri Rajendra Kr. Deka by keeping tenants in the premises. That it is pertaining to mention here that as per LM report, the documents of both mutation and partition are not found in the record preservation Section but they are being searched for with utmost gravity. 4. This Court therefore enquired with the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that taking into account the contents of paragraph No.4 of the affidavit filed by the respondent No.3, what further remains for the petitioner in the present proceedings. He submitted that the file has been stated to have been lost and as such is required to be reconstructed. 5. Be that as it may, it is very pertinent to take note of that the grievance of the petitioner herein is the non-inclusion of his name in the mutation proceedings carried out pursuant to the death of his father upon which portion of the land the petitioner claims that he has right, title and interest along with other co-sharer. 6. On the other hand, Mr. S. K. Krishnatraya, the learned counsel appears for the respondent No.4 submits that during the lifetime of the father of the petitioner there was an oral partition and it is under such circumstances, the mutation was carried out after his death in favour of the respondents. 7. It therefore appears from the above that the dispute in Page No.# 5/5 question is actually a dispute of title in respect to the land more particularly as to whether the petitioner herein has any right, title and interest as a co-sharer to the land in question. Under such circumstances, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be well advised to approach the competent Court of civil jurisdiction. 8. In that view of the matter, the instant writ petition stands closed without prejudice to the petitioner to approach the Court of civil jurisdiction claiming right, title and interest over the land in question. JUDGE Comparing Assistant