Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010100592026 2026:GAU-AS:9035 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/194/2026 OMAR ALI S/O LT. GOPAL SK, R/O VILL- KHANABARI PONE NAYANI, P.O AND P.S- BAGRIBARI, DIST- KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 783349 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER, DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN- 783301 Advocate for the Petitioner : MD H R AHMED, MR A MALEK Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 22-06-2026 Heard Mr. H.R Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.R Gogoi, learned Government Advocate appearing of the State. The revision petitioner has filed the instant application against under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 151 of the CPC, 1908, aggrieved by order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bilasipara, in LA Case No. 154 of 2017. By the impugned order, the learned court below was pleased to reject the Page No.# 2/3 prayer of the petitioner for adjournment for the purpose of cross-examination of his witnesses, and after dispensing with the cross-examination, held that the examination-in-chief adduced shall not be considered for adjudication. It is submitted that subsequently, a review petition was also filed seeking review of the said order, but the same was rejected by vide order dated 06.04.2026. An application under Section 151 of the CPC was also filed, and that too came to be rejected by order dated 27.04.2026. The revision petitioner is prosecuting the LA case seeking enhancement of compensation vis-à-vis the award of the Collector. It is submitted that he has adduced in evidence the testimony of four witnesses, and by the impugned order, the cross-examination of all the four witnesses was dispensed with, with the further observation that the examination-in-chief of these witnesses will also not be considered. I have perused the impugned order. The learned Additional District Judge has stated about several adjournments being taken, and the order came to be passed in the backdrop of such repeated adjournments. Vide order dated 22.05.2026 passed by this Court, the petitioner's side was directed to submit copies of the order sheets to throw light on the adjournments sought for in this regard. Accordingly, certified copies of order sheets have been placed. It is submitted that the testimony of examination-in-chief by way of affidavit of PW-4 (the last witness), was filed on 04.11.2024. Needless to say, it is clear from the materials that there was considerable delay in making the witnesses available for cross-examination, and in the intervening period, several adjournments had also been taken. In that situation, Page No.# 3/3 the learned Reference Court had its own justification in disallowing further time for cross-examination. This aspect is also pointed out by the learned Government Advocate representing the State, which had initiated the acquisition proceedings. I have perused the relevant materials and considered the submissions. Undoubtedly, there has been delay in the proceedings due to the multiple adjournments taken by the petitioner's side. However, it cannot also be overlooked that the proceedings pertain to property rights, and the cross- examination of all the four witnesses adduced by the petitioner's side have been washed away by the impugned order and therefore, in that situation the dismissal of the reference proceeding in the present form seeking enhancement could be a foregone conclusion. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits in this context that an opportunity may be given to him, and he shall produce all his witnesses for cross-examination for proper adjudication of the matter. In the given facts and circumstances, the impugned orders dated 19.01.2026 and the rejection order dated 06.04.2026 and 27.04.2026 are set aside, in the larger interest of justice. The next date is stated to be fixed on 04.07.2026. The petitioner shall make available his witnesses on that date for cross-examination so that the proceedings can move ahead. The reference petitioner shall deposit a cost of ₹2,000 before the learned court, which shall be transmitted to the DLSA, Dhubri. Civil revision petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant