Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010036082026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/983/2026 HAJRAT ALI AND 3 ORS. S/O NOWSHAD ALI, VILL- BHASHANI GAON, P.O.- LAKHIGANJ, P.S.- BILASIPARA, DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM 2: HARUN ALI @ HARUN RASHID S/O NOWSHAD ALI VILL- BHASHANI GAON P.O.- LAKHIGANJ P.S.- BILASIPARA DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM 3: SIDDIQUE ALI S/O NOWSHAD ALI VILL- BHASHANI GAON P.O.- LAKHIGANJ P.S.- BILASIPARA DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM 4: KOSOR ALI S/O NOWSHAD ALI VILL- BHASHANI GAON P.O.- LAKHIGANJ P.S.- BILASIPARA DIST- DHUBRI ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, PIN-781016 Page No.# 2/7 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DHUBRI DISTRICT DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN-783301 3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER BILASIPARA REVENUE CIRCLE PIN-783348 4:ANOWAR ALI S/O LT. HUSON ALI VILL- BHASHANI GAON P.O.- LAKHIGANJ P.S.- BILASIPARA DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM 5:AMINUR ALI S/O LT. BHS BHSASKAR ALI VILL- BHASHANI GAON P.O.- LAKHIGANJ P.S.- BILASIPARA DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M U MONDAL, S S AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPT, GA, ASSAM Linked Case : WP(C)/2699/2025 ANOWAR ALI AND ANR S/O LT HUSON ALI R/O VILL BHASHANIGAON PO LAKHIGANJ PS BILASIPARA DIST DHUBRI ASSAM 2: AMINUR ALI S/O LT BHSASKAR ALI R/O VILL BHASHANIGAON PO LAKHIGANJ PS BILASIPARA DIST DHUBRI ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REP BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM REVENUE SETTLEMENT DEPTT DISPUR GUWAHATI 6 2:THE DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS AND SURVEY ETC ASSAM RUPNAGAR GUWAHATI 32 Page No.# 3/7 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DHUBRI ASSAM 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DHUBRI ASSAM 5:THE CIRCLE OFFICER BILASIPARA REVENUE CIRCLE BILASIPARA DHUBRI ASSAM 6:HAJRAT ALI S/O LT NOWSHAD ALI R/O VILL BHASHANIGAON PO LAKHIGANJ PS BILASIPARA DIST DHUBRI ASSAM 7:HARUN ALI S/O LT NOWSHAD ALI R/O VILL BHASHANIGAON PO LAKHIGANJ PS BILASIPARA DIST DHUBRI ASSAM 8:SIDDIQUE ALI S/O LT NOWSHAD ALI R/O VILL BHASHANIGAON PO LAKHIGANJ PS BILASIPARA DIST DHUBRI ASSAM 9:KOSOR ALI S/O LT NOWSHAD ALI R/O VILL BHASHANIGAON PO LAKHIGANJ PS BILASIPARA DIST DHUBRI ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR. J I BORBHUIYA Advocate for : SC. REVENUE appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 13.03.2026 Heard Shri J. I. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C)/2699/2025. Also heard Shri S. S. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C)/983/2026, who are also the respondent nos. 6 to 9 in WP(C)/2699/2025. Shri N. Goswami, learned State Counsel and Ms. G. Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department are also present and heard. Page No.# 4/7 2. Considering the facts and circumstances involved, both this writ petitions are taken up for an analogous hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 3. So far as the WP(C)/2699/2025 is concerned, the petitioners contend that an application was filed on 08.11.2023 for demarcation of land covered by Dag No. 23 which is a part of the public road situated at village Bhasanigaon under the Bilasipara Revenue Circle. They have alleged that the private respondents have encroached the said land. It is also contended by Shri Borbhuiya, learned counsel that in this regard, an amount of Rs. 55,000/- was estimated for police protection which was accordingly paid and the demarcation was fixed on 18.03.2024. However, the said demarcation was not carried out as the private respondents had informed about pendency of a title suit pertaining the said land. It is contended by the petitioners that the aforesaid title suit being TS/33/2020 is not pertaining to Dag No. 23 and is pertaining to other Dags. In this regard, Shri Borbhuiya, the learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the copy of the plaint enclosed as Annexure-7 to the petition, more particularly to the averments made in paragraph 1 and the Schedule appended thereto. He submits that the suit land consists of Dag Nos. 24, 25, 26 and 27 and there is no reference to Dag No. 23 over which, the demarcation has been prayed for. He, accordingly, submits that appropriate direction be issued for completion of the demarcation in accordance with law. The learned counsel has also informed this Court that pursuant to the order dated 11.02.2026, the trace map of the area has been furnished to the jurisdictional Circle Officer. 4. Shri S. S. Ahmed, learned counsel for the private respondents in this case has however strenuously opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that though it is a matter of fact that there is no mention of Dag No. 23 in Page No.# 5/7 TS/33/2020 instituted by his clients, the land under the said Dag is intrinsically connected with the suit land as there has been encroachment by the petitioners in this case over the land of his clients. He has also submitted that WP(C)/983/2026 has been specifically instituted challenging the demarcation notice. 5. Both Ms. Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department and Shri Goswami, learned State Counsel have submitted that since apparently Dag No. 23 is not connected with the suit land, there may not be any legal bar for carrying out the demarcation exercise. Shri Goswami, the learned counsel has however placed before this Court, written instructions dated 21.02.2026, wherein, the circumstances under which the demarcation could not be carried out has been stated. It is also stated that due to non-availability of the vandyke map in the Office of the Circle Officer and the strong objections raised by the respondents which resulted in breach of peace the demarcation over Dag No. 23 could not be carried out. 6. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined. 7. The cause of action, as espoused by the petitioners in WP(C)/2699/2025 is the inaction of the respondent authorities to carry out the demarcation exercise over the land covered by Dag No. 23. It is not in dispute that an estimate was prepared for the cost of police protection for causing such demarcation which was also paid by the petitioners. The reason assigned is pendency of TS/33/2022 instituted by the private respondents and also non availability of the vandyke map in the Office of the Circle Officer. The other reason is the strong objection raised by the respondents. Page No.# 6/7 8. On perusal of the materials available it reveals that TS 33/2020 pending before the Court of the Munsiff, Bilasipara does not pertain to the land covered by Dag No. 23. For ready reference, the averments made in paragraph 1 of the plaint including the Schedule are extracted herein below: “1. That the predecessors of the plaintiffs late Nowshad Ali was the owner as well as Khatiander of land measuring 2B-1K-16L out of total 3B-2K-14L under khatian No-19/93, Dag No-24,25,26,227,a plot of land measuring 2B-1K-13L under khatian No-14/88, Dag No-17&21, a plot of land measuring 3B-1K-19L under khatian No-20/94, Dag No-28,34, and 7.11.22 predecessor late Bhalki Bewa was also owner as well as Khatiandar of a plot of land and measuring 2B- 1K-0L under khatian No-13/87, Dag No-16 and thus the predecessors of the plaintiffs were the owners as well as khatiandars over the total land measuring 10B-OK-18L situated at Vill-Bhashanigoan, R/Circle-Bilasipara, Dist-Dhubri Assam which is the SUIT land and described in details as mentioned in Schedule at the bottom of the plaint.” “Schedule A A plot of land measuring 2B-1K-16L out of total 3B-2K-14L in khatian No- 19/93, Dag No-24,25,26,&27,a plot of land measuring 2B-1K-13L under khatian No-14/88, Dag No-17&21, a plot of land measuring3B-1K-19L under khatian No- 20/94, Dag No-28,34 a plot of land measuring 2B-1K-0L under khatian No- 13/87, Dag No-16 Old), Kheraj Patta No-76&77 (New), Dag No-15, 24 & 25(New) Total of land measuring 10B-0K-18L situated at Vill-Bhashanigoan, R/Circle-Bilasipara, Dist-Dhubri Assam which is bounded as follows :- North--Village Road & Others South--Nelpu Sk & Others East--PWD Road West--Plaintiff's own land. Page No.# 7/7 9. Page No.# 7/7 9. Though Shri Ahmed, the learned counsel for the private respondents has raised an objection that the subject matter of the suit is connected with the land covered by Dag No. 23 which is also adjacent, this Court is unable to accept the said plea inasmuch as the Dag number being distinct and separate, it is only the aspect of causing a demarcation over the said land where there cannot be any restraint. 10. The other reason cited in the written instructions pertaining to objections raised by the private respondents and possible breach of peace is not acceptable inasmuch as it is the State which is required to ensure maintaining the law and order for carrying out the demarcation process. 11. At this stage, Shri Ahmed, the learned counsel has however raised an apprehension of eviction of his clients. 12. This Court makes it clear that the present issue is only with regard to the demarcation exercise and any subsequent action for evicting encroachment if required, has to be done by strictly following the due process of law. The aforesaid exercise be carried out expeditiously and preferably within a period of 45 days from today. 13. Both the writ petitions accordingly stand disposed of. 14. Interim order passed earlier stands merged with the final orders. 15. The written instructions dated 21.02.2026 placed before this Court by Shri Goswami, the learned State Counsel is made part of the records. JUDGE Comparing Assistant