IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
On the death of Sayed Moinuddin Ahmed His Legal Heirs and Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Assam, Represented by the Commissioner and Secretary, Revenue Department, Dispur & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 4701 of 2013
Decided On : 07-11-2023
graveyard - Property Dispute - Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, 1886 - Title Suit No.176/1978, Sections 147/151 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, 1886 - The court discussed the judgment and decree in Title Suit No.176/1978, which declared the land as the property of the Dargah and the plaintiff's right, title, and possession over the land. The court also highlighted the binding nature of the Civil Court's decree on Revenue Courts.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged a judgment regarding a property dispute over a graveyard. The dispute arose from conflicting claims over the ownership and possession of the graveyard.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the judgment and decree in Title Suit No.176/1978, which declared the land as the property of the Dargah and the plaintiff's right, title, and possession over the land, was binding on the Revenue Courts. The court set aside the impugned judgment and restored the Khatian in the name of the predecessor in interest of the petitioners.
Issues: The main issue was the conflicting claims over the ownership and possession of the graveyard, which led to a series of legal proceedings and judgments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the binding nature of the Civil Court's decree on Revenue Courts, emphasizing the importance of upholding the judgment and decree in Title Suit No.176/1978.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned judgment, and restored the Khatian in the name of the predecessor in interest of the petitioners.
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners challenging the judgment dated 20.06.2013 passed by the learned Assam Board of Revenue in Case No.151 RA(G)/1991.
2. The case of the Petitioners as could be discerned from the pleadings as well as the materials on record is that one Hasarat Abul Quasim Khorasani was the disciple of Sayed Md. Ata Jan who came to India from Iran in 18th Century and thereafter he reached Goalpara and started living there. The said Hasarat Abul Quasim Khorasani was regarded as the powerful Pir and he had many disciples and devotees in Goalpara. In the year 1896, the said Pir commonly known as Pir Saheb expired and his disciples, devotees and his son namely Bahauddin decided to burry him and buried him in the top of the hillock. The said Bahauddin also died leaving his son and legal heir one Syed Mahiuddin. On 11.11.2004, the said Syed Mahiuddin also expired leaving his three sons namely (i) Syed Moinuddin Ahmed, (ii) Syed Mahibulla and (iii) Syed Ata Mohammad Jan. The said three persons who were the grandsons of the popular Pir Saheb were taking care of the Kabarsthan as well as the Majar. In the year 1978, some persons of the Goalpara Town started disturbing the Petitioners’ father and wanted to include the graveyard of Pir Saheb within the Muslim graveyard. However the father of the Petitioners’ resisted such efforts.
3. It has also been mentioned in the writ petition that the Respondent No.4 herein had filed a suit being Title Suit No.35/1978 in the Court of the Munsiff No.2, Goalpara praying for declaration that the graveyard of Pir Saheb is a public graveyard and further for a declaration that the Respondent No.4 who was the plaintiff was entitled to get the income of graveyard and for permanent injunction restraining the Petitioners’ father. The Petitioners’ father duly contested the said suit by filing written statement denying the claim of the Respondent No.4. The said suit being Title Suit No.35/1978 was dismissed by the Court of the Munsiff No.2, Goalpara vide a judgment and decree dated 27.07.1987.
4. It is the further case of the Petitioners that even after the dismissal of Title Suit No.35/1978, the Private Respondent No.4 started disturbing the Petitioners’ father for which the Petitioners’ father was compelled to file a suit being Title Suit No.176/1978 before the Court of the Munsiff, Goalpara praying for declaration that the graveyard of the Pir Saheb is a private Dargah of Petitioners’ father’s family and also for confirmation of possession and permanent injunction.
5. At this stage, this Court finds it relevant to mention that the said suit being Title Suit No.176/1978 was filed only against the State of Assam and not against the Private Respondent No.4. Be that as it may, the said suit being Title Suit No.176/1978 was decreed vide a judgment and decree dated 31.03.1981 holding inter alia that the suit land was declared as the property of the Dargah and the Plaintiff’s right, title and possession over the suit land was also declared. The defendant who was the State of Assam was permanently restrained from interfering in the plaintiff’s possession over the Dargah land. It was further mentioned that the record of rights be accordingly corrected.
6. From the records and more particularly the decree so passed in Title Suit No.176/1978 reveals that the land upon which the decree was passed in favour of the Petitioners’ predecessor in interest was a plot of land measuring 1/2 Bigha i.e. 2 Kathas 10 Lechas which is a part of Dag No.116 of Goalpara Town and was bounded on the North, South and West by the Muslim graveyard and on the East by the Agia Road. Pursuant to the said judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Court, the Settlement Officer passed an order on 13.09.1991 thereby issuing a Khatian bearing No.127 in respect to a plot of land measuring 2 Kathas 10 Lechas as the graveyard of Pir Saheb (Dargah) and in the name of Syed Mahiuddin Khadem for the purpo
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding nature of the Civil Court's decree on Revenue Courts, emphasizing the importance of upholding the judgment and decree in Title Suit No.....
A quasi-judicial authority exercising review or supervisory jurisdiction cannot expand the scope of its adjudication to include property or issues not present in the original proceedings. Furthermore....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretionary nature of the extraordinary remedy granted under Article 226 of the Constitution, the need to balance legal formulations with equ....
The judgment establishes the importance of preserving Satra land and emphasizes the legal provisions prohibiting the allocation of Satra land to persons of a different religion under the Assam State ....
The Assam Board of Revenue cannot exercise jurisdiction over matters that have been conclusively settled by a competent court, especially when procedural requirements like condonation of delay are no....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.