JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

1. The Extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court is sought to be invoked by means of filing these two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As the facts are common, for the sake of brevity, the facts of the first petition is narrated below.

2. A senior citizen is before this Court as the original petitioner praying for justice. The facts would reveal an unholy nexus of high ranking Police officials with some dreaded criminals with the object to grab land in a prime area of Guwahati City and in that process there is the instance of abduction and murder. A bare glance of the case pleaded in the writ petition as well as the various affidavits would reveal that in spite of glaring materials and evidence, no investigation, worth its name has been done and the same is obviously because of the apparent involvement of some Police officers including a high ranking one. It seems that after holding a high post, a section of people tend to forget that no one is above the law and under the Rule of law, all persons are to be treated equally.

3. This petition was initially filed by Smti Magni Devi Jain with the grievance that there was total inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in taking up any action against the land grabbers and land mafias including a high ranking Police officer who by use of influence, muscle power, fabricating documents and other illegal activities were involved in grabbing of a plot of land in the heart of the city of the Guwahati and in the said process abducted and killed the Care taker of the land in question.

4. From the year 1960, the original petitioner (who expired during the pendency of this writ petition) has been the absolute and recorded owner of a plot of land measuring 1B 1 Katha 12 Lechas in Mouza-Ulubari in the city of the Guwahati. Subsequently, one Inder Singh Dell (since deceased) was appointed by the original petitioner as Caretaker of the land in question as he was a family friend for more than 30 years.

5. It has also been pleaded in the writ petition that over that plot of land, One Surajmal Gangwal was a permissive occupier in respect of a part of land which measured about 2 Katha 7 Lechas. On the death of Surajmal Gangwal, the respondent No. 14 who was his son was allowed to continue with the permissive occupation and in this regard, the said respondent No. 14 had executed an affidavit on 21.06.2006 as well as a Deed of Disclaimer being deed No. 6606/2006.

6. Sometime during October, 2009, the Caretaker had started receiving threats directing him to vacate the land. Though, such threatenings had come from persons who were not known to him, it appeared that the respondent No. 14 along with his sisters and respondent Nos. 15 & 16 were acting in connivance. The petitioners having smelled some foul play made enquiries and on such enquiry, found that the respondent Nos. 14 to 16 had wrongfully projected themselves to be absolute owners of 1 (one) Bigha of the said land and jointly sold the same to Smti Bandana Sarma, the respondent No. 17 who is the wife of Shri Khagen Sharma, the respondent No. 21 who was at that point of time, a high ranking Police Officer. The petitioner could detect that a registered Sale Deed No. 8113 dated 13.07.2009 was executed in that regard.

7. It appears that due to some discrepancies, the aforesaid Sale Deed dated 13.7.2009 was found to be insufficient for mutation of the land and therefore, a Deed of Rectification No. 12483/2009 dated 28.10.2009 was made between the respondent Nos. 14 to 16 with the respondent No. 17. The said Rectification Deed gave the false declaration that the original petitioner was the mother of the respondent Nos. 14 to 16 and she had already expired and that the father of the respondent Nos. 14 to 16 was also known as Pannalal. The same rectification was done because the patta of the land stood in the name of the original petitioner with the following descriptions:-

'Smti Magni Devi,