(AM Sapre,CJ)

This is an intra-court appeal filed by the writ petitioner of WP(C) 5217/2013 under Rule 2(3) of Chapter V-A of the Gauhati High Court Rules against the order dated 10.9.2013 passed by the Single Judge in abovementioned writ petition.

By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge (writ court) dismissed the appellant’s writ petition with observations.

So the short point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the writ court was justified in dismissing the appellant’s writ petition?

The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass, so also the controversy involved in the appeal, and hence, instead of reproducing the facts in our order, we consider it apposite to reproduce the entire impugned order in verbatim, which contains the facts and the reasoning of the writ court.

“Heard Mr. A.Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. VL Singh, learned State counsel for the respondents.

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has made a prayer for setting aside the order dated 20.5.13 passed by the Respondent No.2.

The case of the petitioner is that he has filed an application with a prayer for NOC to sell a plot of land before the Revenue Authority and the same is denied in view of the fact that the land in question is subject matter of a suit being T.S.No.26/12 pending in the Court of Munsiff No.1, Tezpur.

Since the suit before a competent Civil Court is pending in regard to claim and title of the land in question, as such the principle of Lis Pendense may apply.

In that view of the matter, the petitioner is at liberty to file an appropriate application before the Court below craving leave of the Court for sale/transfer of the land in question. If such an application is filed, the learned Court below shall consider the same in accordance with law without being influenced by the above order passed by the Revenue authority on 20.5.13.

With the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.”

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at the admission stage and on advance notice served to the respondent’s counsel (State) and upon perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal in part and modify the impugned order as indicated below.

In our considered view, the writ court erred in granting liberty to the appellant to approach the Civil Court for obtaining necessary NOC for sale of land in question only because the civil suit was pending in the civil court. Such direction in our opinion was uncalled for and hence cannot be upheld.

The power to grant NOC to sell the land is conferred on the Revenue Authority and therefore such power cannot be transferred or/delegated from Revenue Authority to the civil court by judicial order. Such power has to remain with the Revenue Authority.

It is a settled principle of law that judgments passed by the civil court are binding on the revenue court/authority and hence any order passed by the revenue court/authority would always be subject to the final order passed by the civil court.

The dispute relating to the ownership of the land arising between the parties has to be decided by the civil court and depending upon the decision of the civil court, the revenue authorities have to pass order in conformity with the judgment of the civil court in relation to the land in question. In other words, revenue court/authority does not have the jurisdiction to decide the ownership rights of the parties over any immovable property and hence either revenue authorities have to await the decision of the civil court on the issue of ownership rights, if the dispute is subjudice in the civil court or pass the order directing the parties to approach the civil court and get their rights decided in relation to the land in question provided there is some dispute between the two rival parties over the ownership of immovable property to which revenue laws are applicable.

Coming to the facts of the case, sin