Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010088142026 2026:GAU-AS:6889 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2453/2026 JAGDISH SAHU AND 17 ORS. S/O. LT. GOLAPCHAN TELI 2: SRI AMRITLAL SAHU S/O. LT. GOLAPCHAN TELI 3: SRI CHANDRA SAHU S/O. LT. GOLAPCHAN TELI 4: SRI DURGA SAHU S/O. LT. GOLAPCHAN TELI 5: SRI GOLAP CHANDRA SAHU @ GOPAL CHANDRA SAHU S/O. LT. RAJBIHARI SAHU 6: SMTI. BIDYABATI SAHU W/O. LT. KISHAN PRASAD SAHU 7: SRI PRANAY SAHU S/O. LT. KISHAN PRASAD SAHU 8: SMTI. KABITA SAHU D/O. LT. KISHAN PRASAD SAHU 9: SMTI. DOLY SAHU D/O. LT. KISHAN PRASAD SAHU 10: SMTI ROSY SAHU D/O. LT. KISHAN PRASAD SAHU 11: SMTI. KUSUM SAHU W/O. LT. BIJOY SAHU 12: SRI ANUP SAHU Page No.# 2/5 S/O. LT. BIJOY SAHU 13: SRI. PADHESHYAM SAHU S/O. LT. RAJABIHARI SAHU 14: SMTI. MINA SAHU W/O. LT. RABIN SAHU 15: SRI. ASISH SAHU S/O. LT. RABIN SAHU 16: SRI PRABIN SAHU S/O. LT. SIVCHARAN SAHU 17: SRI KESARI @ KISHOR SAHU S/O. LT. SIVCHARAN SAHU 18: SRI. NANDA SAHU S/O. LT. SIVCHARAN SAHU ALL ARE PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILL.- KUKURJAN GAON MOUZA- GOHPUR P/O. AND P/S. GOPHUR DIST. BISWANATH ASSAM PIN-78417 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS. REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006 2:THE CO-DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BISWANATH ASSAM PIN-784176 3:THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BISWANATH DIST. BISWANATH ASSAM PIN-784176 4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER GOHPUR REVENUE CIRCLE GOHPUR-784168 5:SRI MINTU GOGOI Page No.# 3/5 S/O. LT. GOPAL GOGOI 6:SRI BALIN GOGOI S/O. LT. GOPAL GOGOI 7:SRI DILIP GOGOI S/O. LT. GOPAL GOGOI 8:SRI BABUL GOGOI S/O. LT. KANADHAR GOGOI ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF KUKURJAN GAON P/O. AND P/S. GOHPUR BISWANATH ASSAM PIN-78417 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A BISWAS, MR P K BASU,MR R KALITA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, REVENUE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER 19.05.2026 Heard Mr. A. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. A. Bhattacharya, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for the respondent no. 1; and Mr. J. Handique, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4. 2. The petitioners have claimed that they are landowners of various parcels of land, described in Paragraph 2.1 of the writ petition and in the Schedule of the plaint of Title Suit no. 11/2025 presently pending before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gohpur, measuring about 60 Bighas 0 Katha and 11 Lessas. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent no. 4 without following due procedure of serving prior notices to the petitioners, had embarked on a demarcation exercise in collusion with the respondent nos. 5, 6, 7 & 8, who are private persons. As the petitioners Page No.# 4/5 are not aware as how the demarcation exercise stood initiated in spite of pendency of Title Suit no. 11/2025, they sought to submit an application each to the respondent no. 3 and the respondent no. 4 on 19.03.2024 seeking copies of [i] the application filed by the private respondents herein seeking demarcation of the Schedule of land, mentioned therein, [ii] the copies of notices issued for demarcation, if any, and [iii] the Order passed by the respondent no. 4 for demarcation in respect of the said Schedule of land. The petitioners have canvassed that as the respondent no. 4 did not acknowledge the receipt of the application in his office, the petitioners were compelled to send the said application by post and the same was duly delivered at the office of the respondent no. 4 on 20.03.2026. In so far as the application submitted before the respondent no. 3 is concerned, the office of the respondent no. 3 had duly received the same and also acknowledged the receipt of the application under seal and signature on 19.03.2026. Yet, the said two respondent authorities have not provided the information / documents as sought for by the petitioners through the said applications. 4. When the writ petition was moved on 13.05.2026, Mr. Handique, learned State Counsel submitted that he would obtain instructions from the respondent no. 3 and/or the respondent no. 4 as regards consideration of the application submitted by the petitioners. Today, Mr. Handique has submitted that he is yet to receive the necessary instructions. He has, however, submitted that in view of the limited nature of relief sought for by the petitioners in the instant writ petition, that is, supply of copies of [i] the application filed by the private respondents herein seeking demarcation of the Schedule of land, mentioned therein, [ii] the copies of notices issued for demarcation, if any, and [iii] the Order passed by the respondent no. 4 for demarcation in respect of the said Schedule of land, the instant writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 3 and/or the respondent no. 4 to provide the copies of the above-mentioned documents within a stipulated period of time. He has submitted that a period of 2 [two] weeks would be reasonable period to enable the respondent no. 3 and/or the respondent no. 4 to supply the copies of the above-mentioned documents. 5. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that if the petitioners are supplied with the copies of the above-mentioned documents, the writ petition Page No.# 5/5 can be disposed of in the afore-stated terms. 6. In view of the broad consensus arrived at by the learned counsel for the parties in the afore-stated manner and considering the limited nature of relief sought for in the instant writ petition, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition can be disposed of, without issuing notice to the respondent nos. 5 to 8, by directing the respondent no. 3 and/or the respondent no. 4 to supply the copies of [i] the application filed by the private respondents herein seeking demarcation of the Schedule of land, mentioned therein, [ii] the copies of notices issued for demarcation, if any, and [iii] the Order passed by the respondent no. 4 for demarcation in respect of the said Schedule of land, within a period of 2 [two] weeks from today. This Court is of the view that such a direction would not cause any kind of prejudice to the respondent nos. 5, 6, 7 & 8. It is accordingly ordered. 7. A copy of this order is to be furnished to Mr. Handique, learned Junior Government Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 to transmit it to the respondent no. 3 and/or the respondent no. 4 for compliance of the above direction. 8. This order disposes of the writ petition. No cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant