Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010097332026 2026:GAU-AS:7519 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/185/2026 PARAM PRAKASH GOGOI AND ANR S/O LATE DEBEN GOGOI, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO. EL6, SUBHAM ELITE APARTMENT COMPLEX, 6TH FLOOR, UN BEX BARUAH ROAD, GANDHI BASTI TINAILI, GANDHI BASTI, SARANIA HILLS, GUWAHATI ASSAM, 781003 2: ANUPAM PRAKASH GOGOI S/O LATE DEBEN GOGOI RESIDENT OF FLAT NO. EL6 SUBHAM ELITE APARTMENT COMPLEX 6TH FLOOR UN BEX BARUAH ROAD GANDHI BASTI TINAILI GANDHI BASTI SARANIA HILLS GUWAHATI ASSAM 78100 VERSUS DEEPALI NEOG W/O SRI PURNESWAR NEOG, RESIDENT OF GAURAB NAGAR, NEAR BIR LACHIT COLLEGE, PO SIVASAGAR, PS SIVASAGAR DIST SIVASAGAR, ASSAM 785640 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. D SARMAH, R A LAHKAR,MR R SENSUA,G KAUSHIK Advocate for the Respondent : , Page No.# 2/7 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER Date : 29.05.2026 Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. R. Sensua, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The respondent has filed a complaint against the petitioners before the Special Tribunal (LG), Kamrup (M), Guwahati, which was registered as Special Land Grabbing Case No. 30 of 2024. In the said complaint, the respondent has accused the petitioners of committing land grabbing in respect of land measuring 1K-5L covered by Dag No. 782 (Old)/ 2001 (New) of KP Patta No. 118 (Old)/ 931 (New) of village Betkuchi, Mouza Beltola, under the Dispur Revenue Circle, in the district of Kamrup Metropolitan, with definite boundaries, which is described in Schedule-A of the said complaint. 3. In the said complaint, the accusation is to the effect that on 30.01.2024, the petitioners had illegally occupied the said land and threatened the respondent with dire consequences. The said complaint is pursued by the respondent through her constituted attorney. 4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as per the requirement of Rule 6(1) of the Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 2013, the Circle Officer, vide memo dated 07.08.2024, submitted a report. It is submitted that as per the said report, the name of the respondent is mutated in respect of the said 1K-5L land and that the present petitioners are not the recorded pattadars of the above-mentioned land. 5. It is further stated that as per the land records staff field verification Page No.# 3/7 and inquiry with the local people, it was found that the respondent was in possession of the land after purchasing by erecting boulder wall on the land. But prior to 4-5 years ago, the petitioners had taken the land of the respondent into their possession by erecting brick boundary wall over the said land, but during inquiry, the petitioners were not found over the land. It is submitted that the said land is still lying vacant and the same was never in possession of the petitioners and therefore, it is submitted that as per his instructions, the petitioners would not come in the way of the respondents taking over the possession of the land, if they are entitled to. 6. It is submitted that petitioners are owners of a different plot of land and by referring to the trace map of the disputed land, it is submitted that the petitioners are nowhere close to or even near to boundary of the land of the schedule respondent. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioners had moved an application under Section 75 read with Order XXVI Rule 9 of the CPC for appointment of a Commissioner to inquire/ investigate and to submit a report in respect of the said plot of land. However, the said petition No. 632 of 2026 dated 12.03.2026 was dismissed and the matter was fixed for cross-examination of the PWs. Accordingly, the petitioners, who were aggrieved by the said order dated 12.03.2026, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Special Land Grabbing Case No. 30 of 2024, thereby rejecting petition No. 632 of 2026, have filed the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. It has been submitted that in order to enable the Special Tribunal to ascertain the status of the disputed land, it is permissible for a Commission report to be called for under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the CPC, even before the Page No.# 4/7 stage of evidence. It is submitted that the purpose of appointing a Commission is to find out actual position of the property, which is in dispute and that ordinarily such a report is required to be called for because on the basis of such report, the parties could be aware of the nature of evidence which is required to be recorded/ led. In support of his submissions, reliance is placed on following cases, (i) R. Narasimhaiah v. Smt. Sakammanamma & Anr., 2000 SCC OnLine Kar 564 and (ii) Mahendranath Parida v. Purnananda Parida & Ors., 1987 SCC Online Ori 60. 8. It is further submitted that in the present case in hand, the petitioners have not even taken a defence of having possession or better claim over the disputed land and therefore, neither the petitioners are in possession of the land nor they have committed the act of land grabbing. In this regard, reference is made to paragraph 17 of the case of XXX v. In Re: The State of Assam, 2017 (5) GLT 854. 9. Under the facts which are unique to a proceeding under the land grabbing Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2010, it may be stated that the law envisages determination of civil liability first and thereafter, the criminal liability, which is required to be ascertained. There is a requirement under Rule 6(1) of the Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 2013 that the Special Tribunal may refer for local inspection or verification or both of the land in question through the Revenue Circle Officer or any other officer of the Government authorized by the Special Tribunal on his behalf. Therefore, there is already a report before the learned Special Tribunal, which was submitted by the Circle Officer, Dispur Revenue Circle, vide memo dated 07.08.2024, which is an initial report at a pre-cognizance stage. Page No.# 5/7 10. In both the cases of R. Narasingamiah (supra) and Mahendranath Parida (supra), referred to by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, though the evidence had not commenced, the High Court of Karnataka as well as the High Court of Orissa had taken a view that even if no evidence is led by the parties, by applying the provision of Order XXVI, Rule 9 CPC, a report can be called for by the trial Court and it is in that aspect that it was held in the case of R. Narasingamiah (supra) that the purpose of Commissioner is to find out the actual position of the property, which is in dispute, and only after the Commissioner's report is filed, the parties would be able to explain away any particulars in the Commissioner's report, and even if there is any doubt in the position of the property, such doubt can be repelled by proper evidence which has to be adduced by the parties. 11. In the case of Mahendranath Parida (supra), the Orissa High Court had held that when the controversy is as to the identification, location or measurement of the land or premise or object, local investigation should be done at an early stage so that the parties are aware of the report of the Commissioner and come to the trial prepared. There is no quarrel with the said proposition of law. However, in the present case in hand, there is already on record a Commissioner's report. Therefore, without any evidence being led by the parties, to create another report to counter the report which is already on record, in the opinion of the Court, would be counter-productive. In the event there are conflicting reports by the same authority, there would be more confusion than clarity on the nature of evidence which is required to be led. On the other hand, if the second report tallies with the contents of the first report, it would create a further confirmation of fact which is already recorded in the earlier Commissioner’s report. Page No.# 6/7 12. In the said context, the Court is of the view that as the provisions of Order XXVI Rule 10(2) mandates that the report and depositions of the Commissioner is to be evidence in the suit or proceedings, this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would refrain from passing any orders to substitute its view upon the view already taken by the learned trial Court and to direct creation of an evidence. 13. In the present case, the facts are different from the facts on which the cases of R. Narasingamiah (supra) and Mahendranath Parida (supra) were decided. In this case, there is indeed a Commissioner's report available on record, and whether the same would be acceptable as a good evidence is to be tested by the witnesses to be examined by both sides. 14. It may be stated that the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, by referring to the Circle Officer's report, has submitted that when the inspection of the inquiry was carried out, the petitioners were not found on the land. He had also laid stress on the point that in the complaint petition, there is a specific averment that that the land grabbing had occurred on 30.01.2024, and therefore, it was not the pleaded case of the respondent that the petitioners had grabbed the land 4 to 5 years ago from the date of inquiry. However, the issue as to whether in light of already existing report of 07.08.2024, which is prior to Court taking cognizance of the alleged offence, can it be held by this Court that the order dated 12.03.2026, passed by the learned Special Tribunal is illegal or perverse, warranting interference under jurisdiction to be exercised under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 15. In light of the discussions above, as it is open to the petitioners to deal with the Circle Officer's report dated 07.08.2024, in a manner to which the Page No.# 7/7 petitioners are well advised, but as held hereinbefore, the Court cannot envisage a situation where to counter one Commission report, another Commission report be ordered when the parties are yet to lead evidence. 16. Be that as it may, the observations made in this order shall not prevent or preclude the petitioners to make an appropriate application before the learned Special Tribunal to have the inspection of the land carried out afresh at the stage of their evidence and/ or to take appropriate stage in advance so that when the petitioners are called upon to adduce evidence, the delay can be curtailed, because as per the provisions of Section 11 of the Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2010, the burden of proof is on the land grabber to prove that land has not been grabbed. 17. With the aforesaid observations, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 12.03.202612.03.2026, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Special Land Grabbing Case No. 30 of 2024. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed. 18. Nothing contained in this order shall prejudice any of the parties when the matter is tried and/ or heard on merit. JUDGE Comparing Assistant