Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010031122026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1164/2026 SAMSUL HOQUE S/O SAIDUR RAHMAN, R/O. VILLAGE ITARVITHA, P.S.- HOWLY, PIN CODE 781316, DISTRICT- BARPETA, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHAT -6 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BARPETA (LAND REVENUE BRANCH) CUM REGISTRAR P.O. AND DISTRICT- BARPETA ASSAM. PIN CODE 781301 3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER BARNAGAR REVENUE CIRCLE DISTRICT- BARPETA ASSAM. PIN CODE -38131 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C BISWAS, MS. K L R YANTHAN,MR. F A HASSAN,MS. U NANDA,MR. A K DAS Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 06.03.2026 Heard Shri S. C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri N. Das, learned State Counsel and Ms. P. R. Mahanta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department. Considering the subject matter involved and also as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage. As per the facts projected, the petitioner had purchased a plot of land measuring 4 Katha, 18 lessa covered by Dag No. 155, KP Patta No. 312 of Revenue Village Howly in the Barnagar Circle in the district of Barpeta vide Registered Sale Deed Nos. 3072 and 3012 dated 29.09.2023. Thereafter, he had applied for mutation in the manner prescribed i.e. online. However, vide an order dated 01.12.2025, the same was rejected with remarks “Wrong Apply”. The petitioner had thereafter submitted a representation before the Deputy Commissioner which has not been acted upon and accordingly, this Court has been approached under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Shri Biswas, the learned counsel has submitted that the District Commissioner has a legal obligation for considering the representation which has not been done and in the meantime, the matter is being delayed. On the other hand, both Shri Das, the learned State Counsel and Ms. Mahanta, the learned Standing Counsel have submitted that under Section 8 of the Right to Public Service Act, 2012, there is a provision of appeal if any Page No.# 3/3 person is aggrieved by orders passed in an application for mutation. They have also pointed out that such appeal is required to be accompanied by certain fee. After considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the contesting parties, this Court is of the opinion that instead of keeping this writ petition pending, the same is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the District Commissioner under Section 8 of the Act of 2012 as mentioned above in the manner prescribed and if such appeal is preferred in accordance with law, the same is directed to be considered and appropriate speaking orders be passed there on. The appeal be considered and disposed of within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of the same and in such consideration, the petitioner be afforded an opportunity of hearing. JUDGE Comparing Assistant