Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010147332025 2026:GAU-AS:4640 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/357/2025 RAHENA BEGUM W/O HASAN RAJA LASKAR, R/O VILL- BETJAN ROAD, MAKUM JUNCTION, DIST- TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN-786170 VERSUS NAVAJYOTI SAHARIA THE CIRCLE OFFICER, DOOMDOOMA REVENUE CIRCLE, DIST- TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN-786151 Advocate for the Petitioner : G UDDIN, P ADHIKARI,MR. A UDDIN Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S S ROY, MR. S BORTHAKUR BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA 31.03.2026 ORDER Heard Mr. G. Uddin, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent. 2. Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent Page No.# 2/4 submits that there was no mandamus issued in the matter. As such, so far as the observation made by the Court concerned, the same has been complied with by conducting a hearing. However, the same could not be concluded as the petitioner did not come before the respondent after seeking some time. 3. vide order dated 22.11.2024, a co-ordinate bench of this Court has passed the following order:- “Under such circumstances, this Court is disinclined to pass any order as prayed for in the present writ petition. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the Circle Officer and file appropriate application if any highlighting her grievances specifically and supported by adequate documents and if such a representation is filed within a period of 30 days from today, the Circle Officer will thereafter proceed to examine the grievances of the petitioner and pass appropriate order thereon within a further period of 60 days from the date such an application is filed. The Circle Officer will ensure that all affected parties are given a right of hearing before any such orders are passed”. 4. The instant contempt petition has been filed contending that though, an observation was made that the Circle Officer will pass an appropriate order within a period of 60 days, the same has not been done, as yet. 5. The sole respondent has filed an affidavit-in-opposition in the instant case, wherein, it is seen from the Annexure-8 that on 22.07.2025, a hearing was conducted wherein the petitioner was also present. In this connection, it would be relevant to extract hereinbelow, a note that has Page No.# 3/4 been made by the concerned Circle Officer:- “Though, the date 21.07.2025 was fixed for hearing but due to field emergency duty, the hearing could not be conducted. Today all the three parties are present. Heard argument of all the parties. Whereas, Azim Ahmed possessed excess land as described in his Deed so today Rehana Begum and Azim Ahmed decided that they will discuss mutually regarding the share of the Land in lieu of valid consideration and for that discussion Rahena Begum informed that she requires some time. The decision to be arrived by way of mutual discussion will be informed to undersigned”. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent submits that in spite of the aforesaid hearing and time taken by the petitioner, the petitioner, thereafter, did not approach the sole respondent and therefore, no specific order could be passed in terms of the order dated 22.11.2024. He further submits that issue actually relates to a civil dispute and therefore, this Court did not issue any mandamus earlier and referred the matter to be settled before the Circle Officer amicably. 7. From the contempt petition, what it transpires, is that the only grievance of the petitioner is that no order in terms of the order dated 22.11.2024 was passed by the Circle Officer till date. However, it is also seen that after the hearing that took place on 22.07.2025 and in terms of the note dated 22.07.2025, the petitioner has not approached the sole respondent and/or intimated him about her discussions with the aforesaid Azim Ahmed. Page No.# 4/4 8. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view, which is agreed to by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties that the present contempt petition can be disposed of with a direction to the Circle Officer to pass appropriate order after conducting a further hearing involving all the stake holders in the instant case, including the petitioner. Therefore, it is directed that the petitioner shall file an appropriate application in terms of the earlier order dated 22.11.2024 before the respondent within a period of 2 (two) months from today and on receipt of such application, the respondent shall conduct a hearing and pass an appropriate order within a period of one month from receipt of such application submitted by the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid order, the instant contempt petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant