Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010102482024 2026:GAU-AS:5913 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2802/2024 ANJALI GHOSH W/O- SUBODH GHOSH, D/O- LATE RAKHAL CHANDRA GHOSH, PERMANENT R/O- BONGAIGAON TOWN, WARD NO-4, DIST- BONGAIGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06, DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM. 2:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM REVENUE (SETTLEMENT) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER SONITPUR TEZPUR. 4:THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER SONITPUR TEZPUR. 5:THE CIRCLE OFFICER TEZPUR SADAR REVENUE CIRCLE Page No.# 2/6 SONITPUR ASSAM PIN-78400 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D. BORAH, Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE, GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 29-04-2026 Heard Mr. M. K. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. D. Bora, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G. Hazarika, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent no. 1 as well as Mr. J. Handique, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent nos. 3 to 5. 2. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner’s father, namely, late Rakhal Chandra Ghosh was settled with 2 Kathas of land, covered by Dag No. 1266 under Mouza Mahabhairab of Tezpur Town Part-II on payment of Rs. 44,444/- on 21.02.2002. It is the grievance of the petitioner that even after settlement, neither the name of the father of the petitioner nor the names of the legal heirs of the deceased father have been mutated in respect of the aforesaid land. It is contended that while the matter was pending at that stage, a notice was issued to the petitioner, who is the daughter of the settlement holder, i.e., late Rakhal Chandra Ghosh for eviction. The petitioner, being aggrieved by such eviction notice, approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 5436/2022. After considering the aforesaid writ petition, on a consensus arrived at by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition was disposed of by providing that the respondent Page No.# 3/6 authorities shall not disturb the possession of the petitioner over the land measuring 2 Kathas, which was settled with the deceased father of the petitioner under the Settlement Order dated 18.08.2000. 3. Since the petitioner is in possession of the aforesaid land and no demarcation of the land as well as mutation and formal handing over of the land was not carried out by the respondent authorities, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying for a direction to the respondent authorities, particularly the respondent no. 5 to demarcate the boundaries of the parcel of the land covered by Dag No. 1266, belonging to the petitioner after settlement and thereafter, to correct the land records suitably. 4. It is seen that an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the State respondents in the instant case, taking stand that the land which was settled in favour of the father of the petitioner under Dag No. 1266 had been declared to be a ‘Hola’ land (waste land formed by running water), in terms of Settlement Rules made under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. 5. To that aspect, the respondent authorities have relied on a notice dated 15.10.2015, which reveals that with the approval of the Revenue Department, certain areas were declared ‘Hola’ land with an object to maintain environmental balance and free flow of water. Therefore, the respondent authorities have taken a stand that the petitioner’s land comes under the aforesaid land which has been declared as ‘Hola’, wherein the petitioner is in occupation of 1 Katha land. However, it is also seen that the petitioner’s land was settled in favour of her late father way back in the year 2000 and the declaration of ‘Hola’ land vide notification, was issued on 15.10.2015, much after the settlement of the land of the petitioner against her deceased father. Page No.# 4/6 6. In view of the aforesaid situation, this Court, vide order dated 07.04.2025, passed the following order: - “5. In the considered opinion of this Court, the affidavit is not clear as regards actual status of the land of the petitioner inasmuch as, there are 4 Kathas 5 Lechas of land under Dag No. 1266, which was declared to be Hola (waste land formed by running water). Therefore, the issue arises before this Court is when the State has taken money for settlement of certain land in favour of the petitioner and subsequently such land was converted into a Hola land, whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation or alternative land in this regard or whether the petitioners’ name can be mutated over such land. 6. The State respondent shall file an affidavit after due enquiry exact possession of the land and specifically showing the boundary of the land whether this is a Hola in terms of notification dated 15.10.2015. However doing so, the petitioner be informed as regards the date of such verification and report be submitted before this Court by the next date. A copy of the map of the entire Hola under notice dated 15.10.2015 also be produced before this Court.” 7. It is seen that in terms of the aforesaid direction of this Court dated 07.04.2025, an enquiry has been conducted by the Circle Officer, Tezpur Revenue Circle and thereafter, a report has been submitted before the District Commissioner, Sonitpur District, Tezpur, dated 28.11.2025, which has been placed before this Court and for identification, the same is marked ‘X’ and made part of the record. 8. The aforesaid enquiry report reveals that an enquiry was conducted in presence of the petitioner as well as one Chitta Gopal Dutta, wherein it is found that under Dag No. 1266, 1 Katha 5 Lechas of land is in possession of the petitioner and residents, namely, Chitta Gopal Dutta, Mani Gopal Dutta and Nirod Kumar Dutta, all Page No.# 5/6 sons of Manik Dutta have been illegally occupying certain portion of the land belonging to the petitioner and the same fact has been informed to the aforesaid residents residing in the eastern side of the boundary of the land of the petitioner. Therefore, it is discernible from the aforesaid enquiry report that the petitioner is in possession of 1 Katha 5 Lechas of land and certain portion of the 2 Kathas of land allotted to the petitioner’s father have been occupied by the residents, residing in the eastern boundary of the land of the petitioner. Therefore, it is clear that though 2 Kathas of land have been allotted to the deceased father of the petitioner and the petitioner is presently in possession of 1 Katha 5 Lechas of land and remaining 15 Lechas of land is in possession of the aforesaid residents, residing in the eastern side of the boundary of the petitioner’s land. The enquiry report specifically provides that 2 Kathas of land allotted to the deceased father of the petitioner and an amount of Rs. 44,444/- was paid as premium for the land. 9. In view of the aforesaid, the learned counsel appearing for the parties is in agreement that the instant case can be disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to demarcate the allotted land of the petitioner and thereafter, do the necessary correction of the land records within a specified time. Accordingly, it is directed to the respondent authorities, particularly the respondent no. 5, to carry out the exercise of demarcation of the boundaries of the land of the petitioner, covered by Dag No. 1266 and thereafter, correct the land records suitably, without disturbing the respective possession of the petitioner and other residents on the eastern side of the boundary of the petitioner’s land. 10. The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out and completed by the respondent authorities, particularly the respondent no. 5 within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Page No.# 6/6 11. The petitioner is directed to submit the certified copy of the instant order at the earliest so that the necessary exercise, as directed above, could be completed by the respondent authorities within the time specified. 12. In the above terms, the instant writ petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant