1. Shakespeare had famously said in his immortal creation ‘Romeo and Juliet’:-

“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”

2. However, the issue raised in this writ petition is quite mundane, far removed from the realm of prose and poetry.

3. Petitioners are aggrieved by naming of their village as Rangchalia Kathabari instead of Kathabari.

4. According to the petitioners, Kathabari is a cadastral village comprising a part of revenue village Mazgaon in the district of Sonitpur, Assam as would be evident from the revenue records relating to settlement operation of 1934. It is stated that all along the village was known as Kathabari which would be evident from the electoral rolls and revenue records. However, a group of people migrated to the village from Rangchalia under Bihali constituency and settled down in Kathabari village. One person out of the said group later on became the village Headman, i.e. Gaonburah and from that time onwards, Gaonburah and the other persons started prefixing the name Rangchaliato the name Kathabari, thus referring to the village as Rangchalia Kathabari. Even election department also changed the name of the village Kathabarito Rangchalia Kathabariin the 1993 electoral rolls.

5. Though a Civil Suit was instituted for restoration of the original name of the village as Kathabari, the same was dismissed. First Appeal as well as the Second Appeal preferred by the plaintiffs were also dismissed. It is stated that petitioners were not plaintiffs in the suit and appellants in the related appeals. Therefore, the said decisions would not be binding on the petitioners. Petitioners have referred to a number of documents mentioned in paragraph11 of the writ petition in support of the contention that their village was always known as Kathabari and not Rangchalia Kathabari. It is with the above grievance that the present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents, more particularly, respondent No.2, i.e., State of Assam not to use the word Rangchalia before the word Kathabari while referring to the village Kathabari under Sootea Assembly Constituency and also for correction of all records and voters lists by removing the word Rangchalia.

6. By order dated 02.04.2018, this Court had issued notice and passed an order of statusquo with respect to the name of the village Kathabari.

7. Respondent No.6, i.e., Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur at Tezpur has filed an affidavit stating that as per report of the Circle Officer, Naduar dated 21.06.2018, Kathabariis not a revenue village. It is one of the 9 hamlets which constitutes the revenue village of Mazgaon and Uparkuri part. As per the said report, fact of pre-existence of the name Kathabari prior to independence is not known. Since 1966, Kathabari has been enlisted in the voters list under Sootea constituency. As per this affidavit, the word Rangchaliahas not been used in any Government document or record.

8. Respondent No.3, i.e., Chief Electoral Officer, Assam in his affidavit has contended that the writ petition is barred by the principle of resjudicata. Issue raised in the writ petition has already been adjudicated by a civil court of competent jurisdiction by declining to pass any decree that the village should be known only by the name Kathabari without the prefix Rangchalia. The said decision of the civil court has been affirmed in appeal and thereafter in second appeal. It is stated that since 1959 onwards, the name Rangchalia Kathabari had appeared in the voters list of No.75 Sootea Legislative Assembly Constituency.

9. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties are on pleaded lines. Therefore, a detailed reference to the submissions made is considered not necessary. However, submissions so made have received the due consideration of the Court.

10. Materials placed before the Court reveal that Kathabari Gaon Unnayan Samttiee as the plaintiff had instituted Title Suit No.45/1997 before the Co