Page No. 1/9 GAHC010092152026 2026:GAU-AS:7663 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2506/2026 BINA CHAND W/O LATE DULAL KUMAR CHAND, R/O BAMUNPARA PART V TOWN, P/O- BILASHIPARA, P/S- BILASHIPARA, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHRS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GHY 06 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DHUBRI DIST DHUBRI ASSAM PIN 783301 3:THE CO DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BILASHIPARA REVENUE BRANCH DIST DHUBRI ASSAM PIN 783348 4:THE ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT OFFICER BILASHIPARA REVENUE CIRCLE BILASHIPARA DIST DHUBRI ASSAM PIN 783348 5:THE CIRCLE OFFICER BILASHIPARA REVENUE CIRCLE BILASHIPARA DIST DHUBRI Page No. 2/9 ASSAM PIN 783348 6:ASRAF ALI SO SOLEMAN SARKER RO BAMUNPARA PT V TOWN PO AND PS BILASHIPARA DIST DHUBRI ASSAM PIN 78334 Advocate for the Petitioner : TAWHID LASKAR, MR G U AHMED,MR. R ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE, GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 25.05.2026 Heard Mr. R. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. A. Bhattacharyya, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for the respondent no. 1 through virtual mode; and Ms. M. Barman, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 2 – 5. 2. The petitioner has stated that her deceased husband, Dulal Kumar Chand was a recorded pattadar and owner of a plot of land measuring 2 Kathas 15 Lessas, covered by Dag no. 171 & Patta no. 66, situate at Village – Bamunpara Part – V [Town], Bilasipara Revenue Circle, Bilasipara, District – Dhubri [‘the subject-plot’, for short]. The petitioner has stated that the name of Dulal Kumar Chand was mutated in respect of the subject-plot in the revenue records by way of inheritance. Dulal Kumar Chand expired on 09.12.2003. After the death of the petitioner’s husband, the subject-plot stood mutated in the name of the petitioner and her two sons and they have been playing the land revenue. In respect of the claim of ownership, the petitioner has enclosed a copy of the Land Holding Certificate dated 23.07.2024 [Annexure-A] issued by the Circle Officer, Bilasipara Revenue Circle [the respondent no. 5] wherein it is certified that the subject-plot is in the name of the petitioner and two others. Page No. 3/9 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the names of three other persons [i] Late Kunja Chandra Chand, Son of Late Ketu Ram Chand; [ii] Md. Asraf Ali, Son of Solemon Sarkar [the respondent no. 6]; and [iii] Late Fuljan Nessa, Wife of Solemon Sarkar got included also in respect of the subject-plot showing them as permanent tenants. The petitioner has contended that their names were entered in the land records of the subject-plot erroneously as there was no tenancy agreement between those three persons and Late Dulal Kumar Chand. 4. The petitioner has stated that an application was filed seeking deletion of the names of those persons, allegedly shown as tenants, from the Chitha records pertaining to the subject- plot. On receipt of the application, the respondent no. 5 registered it as Misc. Case no. BPC/Misc/363/2025. After registering the case, the respondent no. 5 issued notices on 23.06.2025 to the opposite parties, whose names were included in the Chitha records pertaining to the subject-plot as tenants, for a hearing on 15.07.2025. 5. The petitioner has stated that on 15.07.2025, a hearing took place in connection with Misc. Case no. BPC/Misc/363/2025. But, the respondent no. 5 did not pass any final order thereafter. With such projections, the petitioner had approached this Court by the present writ petition. 6. When the writ petition was moved on 15.05.2026, the learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam was requested to obtain instructions whether any final order had been passed by the respondent no. 5 in Misc. Case no. BPC/Misc/363/2025, and if passed, when such order had been passed, and if not passed, the time period within which the final order was expected to be passed. 7. Today, Ms. Barman, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam appearing for the State respondents has submitted that the respondent no. 5 has already passed a speaking order in Misc. Case no. BPC/Misc/363/2025 on 15.10.2025. By an Office Letter dated 09.10.2025, the respondent no. 5 had also forwarded a Land Status Report on the basis of Page No. 4/9 the petitioner's application for striking out the names in relation to Misc. Case no. BPC/Misc/363/2025. 8. In the Land Status Report, placed before the Court, the respondent no. 5 had reported as under :- The concerned Land Records Assistant [LRA] duly conducted an enquiry, and as per the LRA field investigation report, it is found that the land record of Old Patta No. 15/New Patta No. 105 of Old Dag No. 124/New Dag No. 172, measuring 04 Bigha-03 Katha-00 Lecha, was recorded in the name of Amarendra Nath Chakravorty, S/o Lt. Mahendra Chakravorty. During the primary survey, Dag No. 124 [Old] of Patta No. 105 [Old] was divided into three parts : · Part A : 03 Bigha-02 Katha-05 Lecha under Dag No. 124 [Old]/New 172 & Patta No. 105 · Part B : 00 Bigha-02 Katha-15 Lecha created as Dag No. 171 New & Patta No. 66 · Part C : 00 Bigha-03 Katha-06 Lecha under Dag No. 170 New & Patta No. 73 Part A : During the survey period, land measuring 00 Bigha-02 Katha-10 Lecha from Patta No. 105 of Dag No. 172 was purchased by Bharati Bala Devya, wife of Nirod Chandra Barman, from the seller Basanta Kumar Chand through Registered Deed No. 2085 dated 11.05.1981. However, her name was inadvertently mutated along with the original pattadar, Amarendra Nath Chakravorty. Subsequently, the same land was mutated in the name of Tiken Ray, son of Tilu Ram Ray, who purchased it from Bharati Bala Devya via Registered Sale Deed No. 4199 dated 31.08.1984. Page No. 5/9 According to the LRA field investigation report, the legal heirs of Basanta Kumar Chand have been in possession of Dag No. 172 along with other co-pattadars, having constructed pucca souses. However, it is to be mentioned herewith that the legal heir of Basanta Kumar Chand has land measuring 0B-0K-06 Lecha out of 0B-2K-16 Lcha in their name as Basanta Kumar Chand sold a portion of land measuring 0B-2K-10L out of his purchased 0B-02K-16L. Mention may be that legal heirs Lt. Basanta Kumar Chand does not have mutation as pattadars in the said Dag 172 of Patta No : 105 although they have possession. Meanwhile, Dag No. 171 is solely under the possession of Ashraf Ali. In Part B of Dag No. 171 of Patta No. 66, land measuring 00 Bigha-02 Katha-15 Lecha was recorded. However, the quantum of land which was purchased by Purnananda Ray S/o Lt. Sibananda Ray from the legal heir of Amarendra Nath Chakravorty is not mentioned in land record of Draft Chitha copy. Later, it is seen that a quantum of land measuring 0B-2K-161 and was sold by Purnananda Ray S/o Lt. Sibananda Ray to Basanta Kumar Chand, S/o Ketu Ram Chand vide Registered Sale Deed No : 4621 of Dated 14.08.1974. After the demise of Basanta Kumar Chand, his legal heirs – [1] Dulal Kumar Chand, [2] Niranjan Kumar Chand, [3] Narayan Kumar Chand all sons of Lt. Basanta Kumar Chand, and [4] Kajali Rani Chand, W/o Lt. Basanta Kumar Chand - mutated their names by inheritance in the year of 28.06.1990. [Sic] period of Revenue attestation dated 05.11.1995, the name of Tiken Ray S/o Tilu Ram Ray was struck off from Dag No. 172 and erroneously inserted as a tenant in Dag No. 171 of Patta No. 66, which is seen included as part of Khatiyan No. 4. Subsequently, during the period of Revenue attestation in the year of 30.07.2008, via Registered Deed No. 2240 dated 31.08.2004, Dag No. 171 [land measuring 00 Bigha- 02 Katha-15 Lecha] was sold by Tiken Ray to Ashraf Ali S/o Lt. Soleman Sarkar and Ashraf Ali S/o Lt Soleman Sarkar mutated his name accordingly, [However, it is to be mentioned herewith that earlier Tiken Ray S/o Lt. Tilu Ram Ray purchased land Page No. 6/9 measuring 0B-2K-10L in the Dag No: 172 from Bharati Bala Devya vide Registered Deed No: 4199 of the year 31.08.1984]. Again it is seen that During the period of Revenue attestation of the year of 30.07.2008, vide Registered Deed 2240 of year 31.08.2004 the name of Ashraf Ali, S/o Lt. Soleman Sarkar was mutated as tenants in place of Seller Tiken Ray. Again it was seen that in the land record of Dag No: 171 of Patta No: 66 were recorded in the name of, the names of [1] Mintu Chandra, [2] Debajit Chand [S/o Lt. Dulal Kumar Chand], and [3] Bina Chand [W/O Lt. Dulal Kumar Chand] as Pattadar by way of inheritance with Lt. Dulal Kumar Chand. Part C : As per LRA report Patta No : 73 covered by Dag No : 170 is recorded in the name of pattadars [1] Dibendu Chakravorty and 11 other co-pattadars for land measuring 0B-3K-6L+. As of the present date, the legal heirs of Basanta Kumar Chand retains possession along with other co-pattadars of Dag no : 172. However, their names have not yet been mutated in the official land records as pattadars. In contrast, Dag No. 171 remains exclusively under the possession of Ashraf Ali. As per the LRA report, the following registered deeds have been executed: Sl.No. Deed No. Date Seller Buyer Area 1 4621 14.08.1975 Purnananda Ray Basanta Kumar Chand 00B-02K-16L 2 2085/1981 11.05.1981 Basanta Kumar Chand Bharati Bala Barman 00B-02K-10L 3 4199 31.08.1984 Bharati Bala Devi Tiken Ray 00B-02K-10L 4 2240 31.08.2004 Tiken Ray Ashraf Ali 00B-02K-15L This land status report is submitted for favour of your kind information and necessary action. 9. On the basis of the Land Status Report, the respondent no. 5 had passed a speaking Page No. 7/9 order on 15.10.2025. The contents of the speaking order read as under :- Whereas, it is seen that a prayer petition of petitioner Smti Bina Chand W/o Dulal Kumar Chand submitted a prayer petition to the undersigned office. The concerning petition states that petitioner Smti Bina Chand W/o Dulal Kumar Chand a resident of Revenue Village - Bamunpara Part-V has applied for striking out the name of Tenants namely [1] Kunja Chandra Dey, S/o Lt. Keturam Dey, [2] Md. Ashraf Ali, S/o Lt. Soleman Sarkar, [3] Md. Fuljan Nesa, W/o Ashraf Ali recorded in the land record of Patta No. 66 [New] covered by Dag No. 171 [New] of land measuring 00 Bigha-02 Katha-15 Lecha situated at Revenue Village Bamunpara Part-V [Town] under the jurisdiction of Bilasipara Revenue Circle. Upon receipt of concerned LRA positive report for hearing the office of the undersigned registered a Miscellaneous case vide BPC/MISC/363/2025. Both parties were served hearing notices by the process server of this office. Whereas, as per concerned LRA field inquiry report submitted on 06.03.2025 land measuring 0 Bigha-02 Katha-15 Lecha is recorded in the name of Pattadar [1] Shri Niranjan Kumar Chand, [2] Shri Narayan Kumar Chand, S/o Basanta Kumar Chand, [3] Shri Kajali Rani Chand, W/o Basanta Kumar Chand, [4] Shri Mithu Chand, [5] Shri Debojit Kumar Chand, S/o Lt. Dulal Kumar Chand, [6] Shri Bina Chand, W/o Dulal Kumar Chand in Patta No. 66 covered by Dag No. 171 situated at Revenue Village - Bamunpara Part-V, and the name proposed to be strike out by the applicant Sinti Bina Chand are recorded in Chitha Copy of Patta No. 66 Dag No. 171 of Revenue Village Bamunpara Pt V as Tenants namely [1] Ashraf Ali S/o Lt. Soleman Sarkar, [2] Fuljan Nesa, W/o Ashraf Ali, [3] Kunja Chandra Dey, S/o Of Lt. Keturam Dey. As per concerned LRA Report submitted on 17.09.2025 during the period of Revenue Attestation of 31.08.2008 vide Registered Dead 2240 for a purchased share of land measuring 0 Bigha 2 Katha 15 Lecha of Bag No. 171, Ashraf Ali S/o Lt. Soleman Sarkar Page No. 8/9 name is recorded as tenants in place of Tiken Ray. Since then Ashraf Ali has been enjoying possession as tenants. As per perusal of Chitha Copy of Patta No. 66 covered Dag No. 171 of Revenue Village - Bamunpara PT V [Town] after tenants namely Md. Fuljan Nesa mutated in place of husband Ashraf Ali. As the striking out of tenants name from the land record needs the approval of the higher authority, as a result, detail report has been prepared and sent to ADC [Revenue] and the case is disposed off. The case is disposed of accordingly. 10. The writ petition has been preferred seeking disposal of Misc. Case no. BPC/Misc/363/2025 and a communication of the final order passed therein. It is noticed that Misc. Case no. BPC/Misc/363/2025 has already been disposed of by the respondent no. 5 by an Order dated 15.10.2025. 11. The respondent no. 5 by the Office Letter dated 09.10.2025 had forwarded the matter to the Additional Deputy Commissioner [Revenue], Dhubri with the Land Status Report and the speaking order for necessary action at his end as the matter of striking out of a tenant’s name from the land record requires approval from the said authority. 12. Ms. Barman, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam has submitted that the matter is presently pending before the District Commissioner/Additional District Commissioner [Revenue], Dhubri for grant of approval to strike out the tenant’s name from the land records pertaining to the subject-plot or otherwise. As the matter of grant of approval for striking out the name of the tenants from the subject-plot is stated to be pending presently before the District Commissioner/Additional District Commissioner [Revenue], Dhubri, Ms. Barman has submitted that the writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the said authority to finalise the matter within a reasonable period of time and as per Ms. Barman, a period of six weeks would be sufficient for the said authority to bring the matter to a conclusion by grant of approval or otherwise. Page No. 9/9 13. Mr. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner has agreed to the submission of Ms. Barman. 14. In view of the fact that the matter of grant of approval to strike out the name of the tenants from the subject-plot is stated to be pending before the District Commissioner/Additional District Commissioner [Revenue], Dhubri, this Court is of the considered view that instead of keeping this writ petition pending, the same can be disposed of with a direction to the District Commissioner/Additional District Commissioner [Revenue], Dhubri to finalise the matter as regards striking out the names of the tenants from the subject-plot as expeditiously as possible and within an outer limit of six weeks from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order by the petitioner at the office of the respondent no. 2. It is accordingly directed. 15. It is observed that before finalising the matter, an opportunity of hearing is to be accorded to the respondent no. 6 along with the petitioner and in such view of the matter, this Court finds that there is no necessity to issue notice to the respondent no. 6 at this stage. 16. This order disposes of the writ petition. 17. The copies of the documents, placed by Ms. Barman, are to be kept with the case record by marking them collectively as Annexure – ‘A’. JUDGE Comparing Assistant