Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010031342026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/43/2026 JAHARUL HAQUE @ JAHARUL ISLAM S/O LT. SOLOMUDDIN @ RAHMAN, R/O RAKHALKILLA, P.O. AND P.S.- LAKHIPUR, DIST- GOALPARA, ASSAM, PIN-783129, ASSAM VERSUS FAZAR ALI S/O LT. JONAB ALI, R/O RAKHALKILLA, P.O. AND P.S.- LAKHIPUR, DIST- GOALPARA, ASSAM, PIN-783129, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M U MAHMUD, S SEKH,MS. N BHARADWAJ,C YANTHAN,V KHAKHALARY,MR S H MAHMUD Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 17.02.2026 Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.01.2026, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Page No.# 2/4 No.1 cum JMFC (Executing Court, for short), Goalpara, in Title Execution Case No.03/2015. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 22.01.2026, the learned Executing Court had arrived at a finding, on the basis of the report furnished by the Commissioner dated 06.11.2025, that the decretal land is capable of proper identification on the basis of dag number and patta number, though there exist some discrepancy in respect of the boundary and thereafter, the learned Executing Court held that the execution case is maintainable and the decree holder is entitled to recover the possession in execution of the decree and thereafter, also arrived at a finding that to execute the decree, police help is required and therefore, directed the decree holder to deposit the police cost in Government Treasury and to submit the receipt in the Court and fixed the matter on 19.02.2026 for steps to be taken by the decree holder. 3. Mr. 3. Mr. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner, taking this Court through the impugned order, dated 22.01.2026, submits that the said order is illegal and arbitrary, and taking this Court to the page No.47, the Jamabandi of the decretal land, submits that the earlier patta of the decretal land is changed to 136 and the Dag number is changed to 292 and 293 and the area of the land under the said Dag numbers are different and also the boundary described in the petition, which is annexed as Annexure-8 at page No.40 of the petition, are different and the land is also standing in the names of one Jalibor Rahman, who is the uncle of the petitioner and one Jubeda Khatun Bibi, who is the mother of the petitioner and as such, the direction issued by the learned Executing Court to execute the decree is inexecutable and it requires interference of this Court. 4. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the impugned order, passed by the learned Executing Court in Title Execution Case No.03/2015, and also perused the order passed by this Court in CRP(IO) No.237/2023. 5. It is to be noted here that the said CRP(IO) No.237/2023 was disposed of by this Court vide order, dated 04.08.2025, directing the learned Executing Court to ascertain as to whether the suit land/decretal land is identifiable on the basis of the Dag number and Page No.# 3/4 Patta number and if the same is identifiable on the basis of the Dag number and Patta number, as provided under Order VII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the learned Executing Court shall proceed to execute the decree and in the process, the petitioner herein shall also be afforded an opportunity of being heard. 6. It is to be noted here that to a pointed query of this Court whether the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of being heard, Mr. Mahmud fairly submits that yes, though he was not informed, yet, he was present at the time of the survey by the Commissioner appointed by the learned Court. 7. It also appears that after the order dated 04.08.2025, of this Court in CRP(IO) No.237/2023, the learned Executing Court has appointed a Commissioner and the said Commissioner has submitted a report on 06.11.2025 and thereafter, considering the said report, the learned Executing Court had arrived at a finding that though there is some discrepancy in respect of description of the boundary, yet, the suit land/decretal land is identifiable on the basis of Dag number and Patta number and the Commissioner has clearly identified the said land and the Commissioner has also reported that the judgment debtor alone is in possession of the said land and no third party is in possession of any portion thereof and that the decretal land is capable of proper identification and the discrepancy in boundary does not constitute any legal impediment in execution of the decree. 8. Mr. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed that the land is identifiable on the basis of Dag number and Patta number though the same has been changed and he further submits that he has no objection in executing the decree in accordance with law. Though Mr. Mahmud has challenged the impugned order dated 22.01.2026, yet, from the documents placed on record, he has failed to demonstrate any infirmity or illegality being committed by the learned Executing Court while passing the impugned order. 9. Under the given facts and circumstances, this Court find no merit in this petition and accordingly, the same stands dismissed directing the learned Executing Court to Page No.# 4/4 execute the decree strictly in accordance with law. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE