Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010095002025 2026:GAU-AS:7926 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2660/2025 GOPI KRISHAN MOUR S/O SHRI RAM SWARUP MOUR, R/O- TARUN RAM PHUKAN ROAD, GANESH MARKET, FANCY BAZAR, GUWAHATI-781001, P.S.- PANBAZAR, DIST- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006, ASSAM 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KAMRUP (M) HENGRABARI GUWAHATI-781036 3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE B K KAKATI ROAD ULUBARI GUWAHATI-781007 ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P P BARUAH, K H SAIKIA,MR. D GOSWAMI Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/8 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER Date : 08.06.2026 Heard Mr. D. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Das, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as well as Ms. G. Hazarika, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1. 2. By way of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to mutate his name in the jamabandi pertaining to the land in question along with the other co- pattadars. 3. The case projected by the petitioner is that a plot of land measuring 18.97 lechas covered by Dag No. 61 of K.P. Patta No. 471 situated at Village Sahar Guwahati (2nd Part), under Guwahati Mouza in the district of Kamrup (Metropolitan), Assam, is an ancestral coparcenary property of the petitioner’s family and that the said property has remained undivided till date. The petitioner claims to be a descendant of Late Ganesh Das Mour, who was his great-grandfather. It is stated that the names of the petitioner’s father and other descendants have already been recorded in the jamabandi relating to the said property. According to the petitioner, being a descendant in a Hindu Undivided Family governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law, he has acquired an interest in the ancestral coparcenary property by birth and is, therefore, entitled to have his name entered in the Page No.# 3/8 record-of-rights. 4. The petitioner further states that he attempted to apply for mutation through the online portal maintained by the respondent authorities. However, the online application could not be processed as the portal required submission of the death certificate of the predecessor-in-interest. Since the petitioner’s father is still alive, the petitioner was unable to furnish such a document and consequently could not complete the online process. 5. It is the specific case of the petitioner that his claim does not arise upon the death of his father but is founded on the rights allegedly accruing to him under the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law in respect of ancestral coparcenary property. According to the petitioner, notwithstanding the lifetime of his father, he is entitled to seek mutation of his name in the record-of-rights. Finding no avenue to pursue his claim through the online mechanism, the petitioner submitted an offline application and a representation thereof before the competent authority seeking mutation of his name. Since no action was taken thereon, the present writ petition has been instituted. 6. Mr. D. Goswami learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner’s grievance is not merely with regard to mutation but with regard to the inability to even place his claim before the competent authority due to the limitations of the online portal. Learned counsel contends that although the petitioner submitted a manual application together with all relevant documents, the respondent authorities have failed to consider the same solely on the ground that applications for mutation are required to be submitted Page No.# 4/8 online under the provisions of the Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012. 7. Per contra, Mr. N. Das, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondent Nos. 2 and 3, submits that mutation applications are required to be submitted through the prescribed online mode and that no online application having been received from the petitioner, the authorities were unable to process his request. 8. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials available on record. 9. The controversy involved in the present writ petition lies within a narrow compass. The petitioner is aggrieved by the failure of the respondent authorities to consider his request for mutation in respect of the land in question. The relevant averments made in the writ petition indicate that the petitioner attempted to avail the online process for mutation but was unable to do so on account of the mandatory requirement of furnishing the death certificate of the predecessor-in-interest. According to the petitioner, such a requirement rendered the online process unavailable to him in view of the nature of his claim. 10. It further appears that the petitioner has specifically pleaded that, finding no provision in the online portal through which his application could be processed, he submitted a manual application before the respondent No. 3 on 29.01.2024 together with all supporting documents. It has further been stated that despite Page No.# 5/8 repeated approaches to the office of the respondent No. 3, no decision has been taken on the said application. 11. The stand of the respondent No. 3, as reflected in paragraph 4 of the affidavit-in-opposition, is reproduced below: “4. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 16 of the instant Writ Petition, the answering deponent states that at present the office of the deponent has not received any online application from the side of the petitioner regarding mutation. So, the process of mutation in his name could not be made.” 12. The aforesaid stand of the respondent No. 3 demonstrates that the petitioner’s request has not been considered solely because no online application was received from him. 13. This Court finds from the materials placed on record that the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 29.01.2024 before the respondent No. 3 specifically explaining the difficulties faced by him in availing the online process and requesting consideration of his claim through a manual application. The said representation, inter alia, discloses that according to the petitioner, the online portal does not contain any mechanism enabling a person claiming rights in ancestral coparcenary property under the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law to apply for mutation without furnishing the death certificate of the predecessor-in-interest. 14. Whether the petitioner is ultimately entitled to mutation of his name in the record-of-rights on the basis of the claim advanced by him is a matter which falls within the domain of the competent revenue authority and must necessarily be examined in accordance with the Page No.# 6/8 applicable statutory provisions and other relevant laws, this Court refrains from expressing any opinion on the merits of such claim. 15. However, what is evident from the materials on record is that the petitioner’s claim has not been examined at all. The authorities have proceeded on the footing that in the absence of an online application, no further action can be taken. Such an approach, in the considered opinion of this Court, cannot be sustained. Digital and online procedures are intended to facilitate delivery of public services and improve administrative efficiency. They cannot be construed in a manner that completely forecloses consideration of a citizen’s claim, particularly where the citizen asserts that the online system itself does not provide an avenue for submission of such claim. Procedural requirements are handmaids of justice and are intended to advance, and not obstruct, consideration of substantive rights. If the petitioner was genuinely unable to avail the online mechanism on account of the manner in which the portal has been structured, the respondent authorities were required to examine such grievance and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law. The authorities could not have simply declined to consider the petitioner’s representation without examining whether the difficulty projected by him warranted consideration of his request through an alternative mechanism. 16. The representation dated 29.01.2024 submitted by the petitioner remains undisposed of till date. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the competent authority is directed to consider the petitioner’s representation and take an appropriate decision thereon in Page No.# 7/8 accordance with law. 17. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s claim for mutation or on the rights asserted by him under the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No. 3, namely the Circle Officer, Guwahati Revenue Circle, to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 29.01.2024 together with all supporting documents and pass a reasoned order thereon strictly in accordance with law. 18. The petitioner shall submit a fresh copy of the aforesaid representation together with a certified copy of this order before the respondent No. 3 within a period of fifteen (15) days from today. 19. Upon receipt thereof, the respondent No. 3 shall consider the petitioner’s claim and pass an appropriate reasoned order within a period of one month thereafter. 20. It is further observed that if, upon examination, the respondent authorities find that there exists any deficiency or limitation in the online mechanism in dealing with applications of the nature projected by the petitioner, appropriate steps may be taken in accordance with law to ensure that such applications are capable of being considered by the competent authority. 21. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Page No.# 8/8 22. No order as to costs. 23. Let a copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsels for the parties. JUDGE Comparing Assistant