Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010250952025 2026:GAU-AS:8617 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6618/2025 NAZIM UDDIN LASKAR S/O. LATE ABDUL HOQUE LASKAR, VILL. MAHAMMEDPUR PART-I, P.O. RONGPUR SOUTH, P.S. LALA, DIST. HAILAKANDI, ASSAM, PIN-788163. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, ASSAM, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER HAILAKANDI DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN- 788151. 3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER LALA REVENUE CIRCLE DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN- 788163. 4:KHAIRUL ISLAM S/O- TUTA MIA R/O- VILL.- MAHAMMEDPUR PART-I P.O. RONGPUR SOUTH P.S. LALA DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN- 788163 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S B LASKAR, MR. H A LASKAR,MS D DUTTA Page No.# 2/5 Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. M H RAJBARBHUIYAN (R-4),SC, REVENUE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER 15.06.2026 Heard Mr. H.A. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. N. Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for the respondent no. 1; Mr. J. Handique, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 2 & 3; and Mr. M.H. Rajbarbhuiyan, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has stated that as per the title deeds, the family of the petitioner is the owner of a parcel of land measuring 2 Bighas 14 Kathas 10 Gondas, covered by Dag nos. 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 212/1080 and 206/872 under Patta no. 62 at Village – Mahammedpur, Part-I, Lala Revenue Circle, District – Hailakandi. It is further stated that the respondent no. 4 whose plot of land is in the western side of the petitioner’s parcel of land, made attempt to encroach into the petitioner’s parcel of land for raising a permanent structure thereon. 3. Stating that the petitioner’s representation for demarcation of his plot of land was not taken into consideration, the petitioner has approached this court seeking inter alia a direction to the respondent authorities, more particularly, the respondent no. 3 to initiate a demarcation process in the western side boundary of the petitioner’s parcel of land, covered by Dag nos. 205, 212/1080 and 206/872 under Patta no. 62. 4. Mr. Handique, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondent nos. 2 & 3 has placed a Report dated 20.01.2026 submitted by the respondent no. 3 to the respondent no. 4 vide an Office Letter under No. LCO.12/2024/Court Case/24 dated 20.01.2026, a copy of which was also endorsed to the learned Junior Government Page No.# 3/5 Advocate, Assam in connection with the present writ petition. With the Report dated 20.01.2026, the respondent no. 3 has also provided the para-wise comments pertaining to the subject-matter in the present writ petition. 5. From the para-wise comments, it is noticed that after receipt of notice in the present writ petition, the respondent no. 3 deputed four Land Revenue Branch staff by an Order dated 05.01.2026 for demarcation of boundary of the parcel of land covered by Dag nos. 201 to 212, 206/1080, 212/872 and 10 under 2nd R.S. Patta no. 62 on 08.01.2026. For carrying out the demarcation process, notices were issued to few other stakeholders viz. Khairul Islam Shekh, Abdul Jabbar Shekh and Riaj Uddin Shekh. Notices regarding demarcation process were also issued to Khairul Islam [respondent no. 4], Saharul Islam, Kamrul Islam, Hussain Ahmed Shekh, Moina Mia Shekh, Anam Uddin Sekh and in response, they submitted a nos. of documents including Title Deed no. 4651 dated 15.05.1967 in the name of Romuj Ali, who was the predecessor-in-interest of Khairul Islam [the respondent no. 4] and others before the respondent no. 3 vide a Petition dated 06.01.2026. On receipt of the Petition dated 06.01.2006 and the enclosed documents from the respondent no. 4 and others, it was found that demarcation of the boundary of the petitioner’s parcel of land had already been settled with the intervention of the local elders by execution of a Memorandum of Agreement [MoA] dated 03.11.2024 wherein the petitioner and his brother Ala Uddin Laskar on one part and the respondent no. 4 and others on the other part had subscribed their signatures in presence of six number of local elders. By the MoA, both the parties had authorized them to settle the boundary dispute between them. On the basis of the conditions of the MoA dated 03.11.2024, the local elders demarcated the boundary and posted pillars thereon on 10.11.2024 in presence of both the parties including the petitioner, and a compromise petition was signed by both the parties including the petitioner, on 10.11.2024 in presence of witnesses. A photo copy of the said MoU dated 03.11.2024 bearing signatures of the petitioner and the respondent no. 4 along with the others has been enclosed with the Report of the respondent no. 4. It is further seen that the MoA had also been registered on 10.11.2024 wherein the signatures of the petitioner and the respondent no. 4 along with the others were present. Be that as it may. Page No.# 4/5 6. In a Report dated 08.01.2026 submitted by the land revenue staff deputed for carrying out the demarcation process vide Order dated 05.01.2026, it is mentioned that at 11-00 a.m. on 08.01.2026 demarcation work was conducted in presence of the concerned authorities. The Report has further stated, as informed by the petitioner and as per records, that the land falls under Dag no. 211 and Dag no. 212, and the boundary dispute relates to Dag no. 212 only. The Report further mentioned that in presence of both 1st party and the 2nd party, the boundaries of land under Dag no. 212 had been properly demarcated on the ground. 7. Mr. Laskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that though the boundaries have been demarcated on the ground, the boundary pillars as per the demarcation process have not been installed on the ground. 8. Taking into consideration the Report dated 08.01.2026; the comments of the respondent no. 3 and the submission of Mr. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner; it is observed that if after demarcation of the boundaries between the petitioner’s and the respondent no. 4’s parcels of land on the ground no boundary pillars are installed yet, then the respondent no. 3 shall finalize the demarcation of the boundaries of the two parcels of land, as demarcated on 08.01.2026, by installing boundary pillars at the cost of the petitioner. The boundary pillars and the necessary labour are to be provided by the petitioner as per the direction of the respondent no. 3 and after the same are provided, the boundary pillars be installed under the supervision of the Land Revenue Branch staff on the ground. This exercise is to be carried out within a period of 4 [four] weeks upon compliance of the formalities on the part of the petitioner. It is clarified that the status quo as regards possession of the respective parcels of land are to be maintained by the petitioner and the respondent no. 4 and the respondent no. 3 shall ensure the same. If in the process of demarcation it is found that any part of the parcels of land of either the petitioner or the respondent no. 4 is in encroachment of the other, the same is not be decided in a demarcation proceeding as for seeking such relief, the demarcation proceeding is an appropriate proceeding to decide any matters of encroachment and the respondent no. 3 is vested with any authority and jurisdiction to remove encroachment from periodic patta land. Page No.# 5/5 9. This order disposes of the writ petition. JUDGE Comparing Assistant