Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Gau) 293

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.
Md. Yasin Ali, S/o. Late Innus Ali & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Assam, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Home Department & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 722 of 2021
Decided On : 17-05-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Y. Sikdar.
For the Respondents:Mr. K. Gogoi, Additional Senior Government Advocate, Mr. R. Sensua.

Point of Law : In exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is not just a Court of law but is also a Court of Equity and a person who invokes the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, is duty bound to place all the facts before the Court without any reservation.

Headnote:
Title Suit – Suppression and concealment of material facts – Petitioners have claimed that they are legal heirs of, who were their father and mother respectively -there are suppression and concealment of material facts on the part of the petitioners while approaching this Court seeking the relief. The petitioners have not disclosed the fact that they had preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court and their appeal was rejected by the first appellate Court finding no merits. Since the petitioners have not challenged the judgments and decrees passed by the learned trial Court and the first appellate Court, the same have attained finality [Para 14]
Finding of the court:
Petitioners have claimed that they were in possession of a part of Plot but it is noticed that during execution proceedings of Title Execution Case delivery of possession of decreetal landwas handed over to private respondents – State respondents have, on basis of revenue records, asserted that in respect of which petitioners have some semblance of claim, are not adjacent plots and plots covered by and a road have separated Considering fact that is not an adjacent plot to, action of State respondents in not serving any notice to petitioners with regard to Demarcation Case cannot be faulted with
Results: Dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Y. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 1-6; and Mr. R. Sensua, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 7-14.

2. The 2 [two] petitioners have claimed that they are the legal heirs of Late Innus Ali and Late Sakina Begum, who were their father and mother respectively.

2.1. The respondent nos. 7-18 are impleaded in the capacities of legal heirs of one Late Abdul Azid. While the respondent no. 7 is the wife of Late Abdul Azid, the respondent nos. 8, 9 & 10 are the sons of Late Abdul Azid. The respondent no. 12 is the daughter of Late Abdul Azid while the respondent nos. 11, 13 & 14 are the grand-children of Late Abdul Azid.

3. The issue in this writ petition revolves around a plot of land measuring 2 Bighas, covered by Dag no. 312 and Periodic Patta no. 99, located in Village – Samatapathar, Mouza – Sonapur, Revenue Circle – Sonapur, within the Kamrup Metropolitan district [hereinafter referred to as ‘Plot no. 1’, for brevity].

4. The case projected by the 2 [two] petitioners, as per the pleadings made in the writ petition, is as follows :

4.1. The family of the petitioners through their predecessor-in-interest is in occupation of Plot no. 1 for more than 70 years. The respondent nos. 7-14 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the private respondents’, for easy reference] through their predecessor-in-interest were/are in occupation of a plot of government land, covered by Dag no. 314, located in Village – Samatapathar, Mouza – Sonapur, Revenue Circle – Sonapur within Kamrup [M] district [hereinafter referred to as ‘Plot no. 2’, for brevity] and Plot no. 2 is second plot neighbouring Plot no. 1. The petitioners have alleged that till the year 1985, the Plot no. 1 was also a government land. Late Abdul Azid initiated a process to convert Plot no. 2 into a periodic patta land on the basis of his claim of its long possession. But the State respondent authorities had incorrectly converted Plot no. 1 into periodic patta land in the year 1985 whereas Late Abdul Azid had no previous possession over Plot no. 1. When the private respondents came to know that instead of Plot no. 2, Plot no. 1 had become periodic patta land in the name of Abdul Azid, dispute started to arise between the two sides on and from 1985 onwards and the private respondents had started making efforts to evict the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners from Plot no. 1 through different methods but all those attempts were thwarted.

4.2. The private respondents had thereafter, instituted a title suit, Title Suit no. 104/2003 before the learned Court of Munsiff No. 1, Kamrup [M] claiming rights, title and interest over Plot no. 1 and had sought eviction of the petitioners and their predecessor-in-interest. After trial, the title suit was decreed in favour of the private respondents by a judgment and decree. After passing of the judgment and decree in the title suit, the private respondents instituted a title execution proceeding vide Title Execution Case no. 18/2014 before the Court of learned Munsiff no. 1, Kamrup [M] at Guwahati to evict the petitioners from Plot no. 1 but on 18.12.2020, the execution case was withdrawn at the instance of the private respondents.

4.3. After withdrawal of Title Execution Case no. 18/2014, the private respondents applied for demarcation of the boundaries of Plot no. 1 without having been in possession of the same. On receipt of the application, the respondent no. 5 registered the same as Demarcation Case no. 28/2019-20 and issued notices on 23.12.2020 to the private respondents and others directing them to be present at the spot on 28.12.2020 for the purpose of demarcation. The petitioners after getting information about the process of demarcation likely to be carried out in respect of Plot no. 1 on 28.12.2020, had approached the respondent no. 5 with an objection petition but the respondent no. 5 refused to receive the said objecti