Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010062052026 2026:GAU-AS:7341 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1775/2026 GEORGE RAHANG SON OF LATE BHABEN RAHANG,R/O. VILLAGE NAZIRAKHAT, P.O.SONAPUR, P.S. SONAPUR,DISTRICT KAMRUP M ASSAM,PIN CODE. 782402 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HOME DEPARTMENT, DISPUR,GUWAHATI - 781006, 2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE ETC. LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI - 781006 3:THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR OF KAMRUP METRO DISTRICT HENGRABARI P.O. HENGRABARI S.O. GUWAHATI - 781036 DISTRICT KAMRUP M ASSAM. 4:THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE KAMRUP METRO DISTRICT NEAR VETENARY COLLEGE KHANAPARA GUWAHATI 781022 5:THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DIMORIA CO- DISTRICT SONAPUR PIN CODE - 782402 DISTRICT KAMRUP M ASSAM. Page No.# 2/6 6:THE CIRCLE OFFICER SONAPUR REVENUE CIRCLE SONAPUR P.O. SONAPUR DISTRICT KAMRUP M ASSAM PIN CODE 782402. 7:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE SONAPUR POLICE STATION SONAPUR DISTRICT KAMRUP M ASSAM GUWAHATI 782402 8:SRI GUNAJIT DAS SON OF KRISHNA KANTA DAS R/O. DWARAKA NAGAR SIX MILE KHANAPARA GUWAHATI - 781022 DISTRICT KAMRUP M ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. Y SIKDAR, MR D J DAS Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, REVENUE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 18-05-2026 Heard Mr. Y. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. J. Handique, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent no. 1, 3 & 7; and Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for the respondent no. 2. 2. The case projected in this writ petition is that the family of the petitioner consists of himself, his mother [Sabita Rahang], his brother [Utpal Rahang] and his sister [Ruma Rahang] and the family has two plots of land, [i] 1 Katha 6 Page No.# 3/6 Lessas, covered by Dag no. 117 & Periodic Patta no. 53; and [ii] 10 Lessas, covered by Touzi Patta no. 117 [Eksonia Patta], both at Village – Tepesia, Mouza – Panbari, Circle – Sonapur, District – Kamrup [M]. The petitioner has stated that the family is in possession of afore-said two plots of land, that is, a compact plot of land measuring 1 Katha 16 Lessas in total at Village – Tepesia, Mouza – Panbari, Circle – Sonapur, District – Kamrup [M]. The family is stated to be in occupation of the two plots of land measuring 1 Katha 16 Lessas by constructing residential houses and permanent structures thereon. 3. An allegation has been made to the effect that the respondent no. 8 had fraudulently executed a sale deed from the petitioner’s mother, Sabita Rahang and the petitioner’s brother, Utpal Rahang for a parcel of land measuring 1 Katha 1 Lessas, covered by Dag no. 117 & Patta no. 53 at Village – Tepesia, Mouza – Panbari, Circle – Sonapur, District – Kamrup [M]. 4. The materials on record go to indicate that a sale deed was registered vide Registration no. 2025/IGR015/1/2074 on 05.03.2025 before the Office of the Sadar Registration Office, Kamrup [M] against payment of consideration mentioned therein. The copy of the concerned Record-of-Right [Jamabandi], annexed as Annexure-A to the writ petition, further go to indicate that after registration of the Sale Deed, the name of the respondent no. 8 was mutated for an area of land measuring 1 Katha 1 Lessas in places of Sabita Rahang and Utpal Rahang by a Mutation Order dated 13.06.2025 passed in Mutation Case no. MET/SON/2024-25/20250030671/OMUTC by the Circle Officer, Sonapur Revenue Circle on the strength of the registered Sale Deed dated 05.03.2025. Subsequently, the Circle Officer by an Order dated 21.08.2025 passed in Mutual Partition Case no. MET/SON/2024-25/202500010496/FPART, issued a separate Page No.# 4/6 Periodic Patta in favour of the respondent no. 8. 5. The respondent no. 8 on 20.02.2026 had served a Legal Notice upon the petitioner, Sabita Rahang and Utpal Rahang alleging that despite receipt of full considerations against the Registered Sale Deed and Deed of Sale for Possessory Right, both executed on 05.03.2025, for agreed sale considerations of Rs. 1,68,000/- and Rs. 22,50,000/- respectively, and repeated requests they had denied physical possession of the two purchased plots of land which amounted to breach of contract. Another Deed of Sale of Possessory Right vide Deed no. 5576 dated 05.03.2025 in respect of Eksonia [Annual] Patta land is claimed to have been executed before the Notary Public, by the Legal Notice. In response to the Legal Notice, a Reply dated 05.03.2026 was sent on behalf of the family members of the petitioner denying such allegations regarding registration of the Sale Deed and Sale of Possessory Right and receipt of consideration of Rs. 22,50,000/- and Rs. 1,68,000/- from the respondent no. 8. 6. The petitioner in this writ petition has alleged that the respondent no. 7 had called the petitioner, Sabita Rahang and Utpal Rahang on 17.03.2026, and in presence of the respondent no. 8, had extracted an undertaking from all three of them that they would vacate the afore-mentioned two sold plots of land within fifteen days from 17.03.2026. 7. It was thereafter, a complaint was sent to the Chief Minister, Assam and to the respondent no. 4 on 18.03.2026 by the petitioner, Sabita Rahang, Ruma Rahang and Utpal Rahang alleging extraction of the undertaking under coercion by the respondent no. 7 and sought necessary action after due enquiry. With such projections, the petitioner has presented the writ petition seeking inter alia a direction to the respondents, more particularly, the respondent no. 7 and the Page No.# 5/6 respondent no. 8 as to why they shall not be restrained from illegally evicting the petitioner and also, carrying out any construction activity over the two purchased plots of land, allegedly fraudulently, by forcefully evicting the petitioner without due process of law. 8. Though the petitioner has alleged that he, his mother and his brother are co-sharers of the plot of land measuring 1 Katha 1 Lessas which was shown to be purchased ‘illegally’ by the respondent no. 8 vide Registered Sale Deed no. 2025/IGR015/1/2074 on 05.03.2025, neither the petitioner’s mother nor the petitioner’s brother has joined him in this writ petition nor any of them have been made respondent in this writ petition. On a query to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is stated that no suit has been instituted seeking declaration that the said Registered Sale Deed and the Deed of Sale of Possessory Right were illegally and fraudulently registered on 05.03.2025 in the name of the two of the family members of the petitioner, namely, Sabita Rahang and Utpal Rahang. Neither the Mutation Order dated 13.06.2025 passed by the Circle Officer, Sonapur Revenue Circle nor the Partition Order dated 21.08.2025 passed by the Circle Officer, Sonapur Revenue Circle has been challenged in any manner before the original authority or before any appellate authority. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when the petitioner approached the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate [Sadar] – I, Kamrup [M], Guwahati by way of an application to direct the Officer In-Charge, Sonapur Police Station under the provisions of 175[3] read with Section 173[4], BNSS, the said application was registered and numbered as Misc [General] Case no. 05/2026 and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate [Sadar] – I, Page No.# 6/6 Kamrup [M] by an Order dated 27.03.2026, declined to treat the application filed by the petitioner as one under Section 175[3], BNSS as the procedure prescribed by the provisions of Section 173[4], BNSS was not followed as no FIR was filed or any complaint was lodged before the concerned Police Station by the petitioner. In the Order dated 27.03.2026, the learned SDJM[S] has held that the application was not maintainable and accordingly, the same was dismissed. 10. The said fact about dismissal of the application filed by the petitioner purportedly under Section 175[3], BNSS has not been brought to the knowledge of the Court on the earlier date of listing the case on 11.05.2026 when the Court expressed a view raising doubt about the entertainability of the present writ petition, in view of the projected facts and circumstances of the case where, the petitioner without approaching the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 175, BNSS read with Section 173, BNSS had approached this Court directly. 11. In view of the dismissal of the application filed by the petitioner under Section 175[3], BNSS by the Order dated 27.03.2026 for the reasons that the provisions of Section 173[4] BNSS was not followed nor any FIR nor any complaint was submitted before the concerned jurisdictional Police Station by the petitioner at any earlier point of time, this Court is of the considered view that there is no cause of action to proceed further with the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. There is, however, no order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant