Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010109582022 2026:GAU-AS:6661 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/60/2022 MD. ALIAS S/O MD. RAUF, R/O KALIBARI, P.O.-DIBRUGARH, P.S.-DIBRUGARH, DIST- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN-786001 VERSUS ON THE DEATH OF ANAT RAM TELI @ SAHU, HIS LEGAL HEIRS AND ORS. (LEGAL HEIRS) 1.1:SMT. DURGAWATI DEVI (WIFE) R/O KALIBARI ROAD NEAR E AND D DRAIN P.O. AND P.S. AND DIST-DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN-786001 1.2:RAJEN SAHU (SON) R/O KALIBARI ROAD NEAR E AND D DRAIN P.O. AND P.S. AND DIST-DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN-786001 1.3:JAI PRAKASH SAHU (SON) R/O KALIBARI ROAD NEAR E AND D DRAIN P.O. AND P.S. AND DIST-DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN-786001 1.4:HARI NARAYAN SAHU (SON) R/O KALIBARI ROAD NEAR E AND D DRAIN P.O. AND P.S. AND DIST-DIBRUGARH Page No.# 2/10 ASSAM PIN-786001 2:SMTI. JANKI DEVI SAHU W/O LT. SHIV KR. TELI @ SAHU R/O KALIBARI ROAD NEAR E AND D DRAIN P.O. AND P.S. AND DIST-DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN-786001 3:OM PRAKASH SAHU S/O LT. SHIV KR. TELI @ SAHU R/O KALIBARI ROAD NEAR E AND D DRAIN P.O. AND P.S. AND DIST-DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN-786001 4:KANAI SAHU S/O LT. SHIV KR. TELI @ SAHU R/O KALIBARI ROAD NEAR E AND D DRAIN P.O. AND P.S. AND DIST-DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN-78600 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. C BARUAH, MR S HUSSAIN,MR. B BARUAH Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A R SHOME (r-3,4), MR A J GHOSH (r-3,4) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER Date : 14.05.2026 Heard Mr. B. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. R. Shome, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By filing this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Page No.# 3/10 petitioner has assailed the order dated 02.05.2022 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Dibrugarh (as it was then) in Title Execution Case No. 49/1982. The substituted respondent nos. 1 (a) to 1 (d) are legal representatives of the original decree-holder no. 2 and respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 are legal representatives of original decree-holder no. 3. 3. The brief background of the case is that one Smti. Chenia Teli and her two (2) sons, namely, Anat Ram Teli and Shiv Kumar Teli, had filed Title Suit No. 27 of 1981 against one Dwarka Prashad Bin and six (6) others for recovery of khas possession of the suit land measuring 30 ft. × 11 ft., being a part of 0B-3K-0L of land covered by Dag No. 436 of Patta No. 158, situated at Kalibari Road, Marwari Patty, Dibrugarh, and described in Schedule-B of the plaint. The said suit was decreed ex parte vide judgment and decree dated 14.07.1982. Thereafter, the decree-holders instituted execution proceeding, which was registered as Title Execution Case No. 49/1982. As lot of facts are involved in these 42 (forty two) years of execution proceedings, reference is made only to those facts which are relevant for the case. 4. On the strength of the decree, the Civil Nazir visited the site on 23.07.2007 and, despite objection raised by the petitioner, the house allegedly standing on 0B-0K-3L of land covered by Dag No. 441 of Periodic Patta No. 159 was demolished. Accordingly, the petitioner filed Petition No. 1972 of 2007 on 20.08.2007 alleging dispossession despite not being a judgment-debtor in the said proceeding. 5. The learned Executing Court, by order dated 12.05.2008, directed the Civil Nazir to visit the site along with the revenue staff of the concerned Revenue Circle for measurement of the land and for submission of a report. Resisting Page No.# 4/10 implementation of the said order dated 12.05.2008, the decree-holders approached this Court by filing an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which was registered as CRP No. 239 of 2008, and this Court, vide order dated 13.05.2015, allowed the verification process in terms of the order dated 12.05.2008. The operative portion of the said order contained in paragraph nos. 11 and 12, thereof are quoted below:- “11. In the instant case, the ordered exercise is still to be undertaken because of the interim order passed on 1.8.2008. Therefore the Objectors claim for restoration of possession is directed to be considered by the Executing Court only after the Nazir and the Revenue staff verify and measure both the decretal land covered by Dag No.436 Periodic Patta No.158 and also the adjacent land of the Objectors covered by Dag No.441 and Periodic Patta No.159. This should be done in presence of both parties. If the verification process reveals that the Objectors were wrongfully dispossessed from land not covered by the decree, the restoration of the property should be granted to the Objectors. But if the exercise carried out on 23.6.2007 is within the decretal land, the Court will pass consequential orders. It is ordered accordingly. 12. With the above order, the Revision petition stands disposed of without substantially interfering with the impugned order dated 12.5.2008 (Annexure-8) in the Title Execution Case No.49/1982 rendered by the learned Munsiff No.1, Dibrugarh. The Registry should send a copy of this order to the concerned Court.” 6. Therefore, avoiding unnecessary details, it would suffice to mention that the Circle Officer, having conducted the survey as directed, submitted a report dated 18.06.2016, before the learned Executing Court, inter alia, stating that Page No.# 5/10 the Schedule-B land covered by Periodic Patta No. 159 and Dag No. 441 measuring 3 Lessas had been measured by the official staff of the Circle Office along with the Civil Nazir, and thereafter the boundary of the land was shown to both the parties. While, the decree-holders had put their signature on the said survey report, but the petitioners refused to put their signature on the said report. 7. Thereafter, the petitioners had moved an application bearing petition no. 1982/16 with a prayer before the learned Executing Court to direct the Flood Control Department to demarcate the land jointly with the Lat Mandal. The learned Executing Court by an order dated 02.11.2016, rejected the said prayer. In the meantime, pursuant to the orders passed by the learned Executing Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that a trace map of the concerned plot of land that was obtained. However, on a perusal of the said trace map, which is available at page no. 99 of this petition, and at page no. 34 of the File – A of the records of the Executing Court, Dag No. 441 measuring 3 Lessas land is shown to be sandwiched between the land covered by the Dag No. 442 and 436 and in the original trace map the land covered by Dag No. 441 is marked with green colour. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the land measuring 3 Lessas covered by Dag No. 441 is situated adjacent to the E&D drain for which reference is made to the judgment and order dated 30.11.2012 passed by the Court of learned Munsiff No.1, Dibrugarh (as it was then) in Title Suit No. 8 of 2008, which was filed by the decree- holders against the petitioners, wherein, the reference of land covered by Dag No. 441 of PP No. 159 was made. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to information Page No.# 6/10 received pursuant to an RTI application reply dated 05.04.2017, where in paragraph no. 1 thereof, the Circle Officer, Dibrugarh East Revenue Circle, had disclosed that 3 Katha land was found in Dag No. 436 of Patta No. 158 in Dibrugarh Town, Mouza- Marwari Patty and the aforesaid dag number do not contain 2 Katha 3 Lessas of land as per record. 9. Accordingly, it is sought to be projected that the 3 Lessas of land from which the petitioners have allegedly been dispossessed have been found to be within Dag No. 436. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned order dated 02.05.2022 did not take into account the said RTI reply, which is contrary to the demarcation made on 13.06.2015 and forwarded to the learned Executing Court by the Circle Officer, Dibrugarh East Revenue Circle, vide letter dated 18.06.2016. It is, therefore, contended that the said demarcation was incorrect, and accordingly, prayer has been made for a fresh demarcation of the land by setting aside the impugned order dated 02.05.2022. 10. Having heard the both sides, perused the execution records received from the Court of learned Munsiff No. 1, Dibrugarh, i.e. Title Execution Case No. 49 of 1982. 11. It is noticed that the judgment dated 30.11.2012 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Dibrugarh, in T.S. No. 8 of 2008, the case projected by the decree-holders was that they were absolute owners of a plot of land measuring 3 kathas covered by Dag No. 436 under PP No. 158, situated Marwari Patty Ward and another land measuring 2 Katha 3 Lessas covered by Dag No. 332/703 situated at Kalibari road, Marwari Patty Ward. 12. While discussing issue Nos. 3 & 4 of the said suit, the learned Trial Court Page No.# 7/10 had referred to the spot verification report of the Circle Officer that the thatched house was held in Dag No. 441 of PP No. 159, Dag No. 440 of PP No. 207 and not under Dag No. 436 of PP No. 158 and further referred that the same was affirmed in the cross-examination of DW-1 and DW-1 had disputed land in Dag No. 441 of PP No. 159. It would be appropriate to quote the decision of the learned Trial Court on issue nos. 3 and 4:- “Issue No. 3/4 In this case parties shave led oral evidence but regarding the identity of the suit land dag, patta the circle official spot verification is most vital to decide in this as case plaintiff claim that suit land is of him falls in dag number 436 where defendants denies the same. In spot verification report the circle officer submitted that suit land with thatched house falls in dag no 441 of pp no159, 440 of dag no pp 207 not under dag no 436 of p.p 158 of marwary patty ward mouza to which dws affirmed in cross as dw1 deposed in cross that the disputed land dag number is 441 p.p. number 159. The dw1 affirmed ion evidence that land of the defendants bounded by north kalibari road, south land of plaintiffs and west there is E & D drain. Dw1 depose in cross that suit land is attached with his land implying that suit land falls under defendants. The cross of pw1 as deposed that defendants an md alias filed T.ex49/82 alleging that their land in patta number 159 of dag number 441 was dispossessed for which this court passed order in12/5/08 for the defendant which shows that suit land falls in dag number 441,pp 159 as claimed by the defendant not under dag number 436 as alleged by the plaintiffs where the defendants are residing by own right. The dws support the commissioner report to which plaintiff has no objection on the report and it is affirmed in A1976 D175 that commissioners repot is admissible as sustentative piece of evidence without examining the commissioner. So I am of the view that these issues go against the plaintiffs.” Page No.# 8/10 Resultantly, the suit filed by the decree holder was dismissed. 13. However, the matter relating to the site verification was being adjudicated by this Court in CRP No.239 of 2008. In the order dated 13.05.2015, by which CRP No. 239 of 2008 was disposed, the order does not reflect that the judgment and order dated 30.11.2012 was brought to the notice of this Court. It is apparent that even after disposal of the said CRP No. 239 of 2008, no application was filed for bringing to the notice of this Court any omission on the part of this Court to refer to the finding on issue Nos. 3 and 4 as given in the judgment and order dated 30.11.2012 passed by the learned Trial Court in T.S. No. 8 of 2008. Therefore, a fresh survey of the disputed land was carried out. As indicated above, in the process of demarcation it does not appear that the judgment and order dated 30.11.2012 passed in T.S. No. 8 of 2008 was referred to. In the demarcation so carried out on 13.06.2016 which was forwarded to the learned Executing Court by a letter dated 18.06.2016, issued by the Circle Officer, East Revenue Circle, the land measuring 3 Lessas covered by Dag No. 441 was shown, which the petitioners have refused to accept by refusing to sign the report of the Circle Officer. As indicated earlier, in the trace map available on File-A of Title Execution Case No. 49 of 1982, the land shown at Dag No. 441 is found to be sandwiched between land covered by Dag No. 436 and Dag No. 442. However, in connection with the Schedule-B land measuring 3 Lessas covered by Dag No. 441 of Periodic Patta No. 159, it has been mentioned in the said survey report that the said land was shown to both the parties but while measuring the concerned land revenue staff did not find E&D drain in the map. 14. In connection with the proceedings arising out of Petition No. 1972/2007, Page No.# 9/10 which is deemed to be an application within the meaning of Order XXI Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure, no evidence was led by the petitioner to establish the existence of Dag No. 441 in respect of the land from which the petitioner was allegedly dispossessed. 15. Thus, although the 3 Lessas of land covered by Dag No. 441 was shown to the petitioners, they refused to accept the said land, apparently insisting that the land should be adjacent to the E&D drain. 16. Under the circumstances, this Court finds no material on record to dispute or disbelieve the findings recorded by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Dibrugarh, while passing the order dated 02.05.2022. Accordingly, there is no apparent reason for this Court to take a view contrary to the one taken by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Dibrugarh in the order dated 02.05.2022. 17. While entertaining the present challenge to the order dated 02.05.2022 in this revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court is exercising only supervisory jurisdiction and unless any error apparent or jurisdictional error is demonstrated, this Court would not substitute its view for the one taken by the learned Executing Court. Resultantly, the challenge to the impugned order dated 02.05.2022 fails and this revision stands dismissed. 18. Before parting with the records, this Court puts on record the appreciation of the assistance rendered by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which enabled this Court to deal with records spanning forty (40) years. This Court, vide order dated 13.05.2026, had requested both sides to furnish a list of dates, which direction was complied with by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Page No.# 10/10 However, similar assistance was not forthcoming from the learned counsel for the respondents, which is deprecated. JUDGE Comparing Assistant