Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Manish Choudhury
Hridayananda Das Son of Late Phanindra Das – Appellant
Versus
tate of Assam Represented By the Principal Secretary to The Govt. of Assam, Revenue Department – Respondent
ORDER :
Heard Mr. B. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners; Ms. P.R. Mahanta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for the respondent no. 1; and Mr. H. Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4.
2 Having regard to the grievance raised by the petitioners in this writ petition and taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage itself, as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Considering the order to be passed, this Court finds that notice to the respondent no. 5 is not necessary as it is noticed that he has already been put to notice by the respondent no. 3 on 13.11.2025 in Misc. Case no. 85/2024-2024, the details of which would be adverted in the later part of this order.
4. The petitioners are sons of one Late Phanindra Das. The petitioners have stated that they inherited a plot of land, covered by Dag no. 137 & Patta no. 123, situate at Village – Baramara, Mouza – Nagaon, Barpeta Revenue Circle, District - Barpeta [‘the subject-plot’, for short]. In the revenue records pertaining to the subject-plot, the name of the
Due process must be followed in mutation cases, ensuring all parties are afforded opportunities to be heard before a decision is made.
The court underscored the necessity of adhering to statutory timelines for mutation applications, directing prompt action within a stipulated period to ensure compliance with public service regulatio....
Mutation orders require evidence of possession through lawful transfer, and failure to consider possession invalidates such orders.
The court affirmed that a party cannot challenge a mutation order after losing title proceedings, emphasizing the necessity of full disclosure of prior litigation.
A landowner's right to mutate property based on a registered sale deed cannot be legally denied without lawful acquisition or evidence of ownership disputes.
The court concluded that the respondent lacked jurisdiction to revisit the validity of the sale deed during mutation proceedings, reaffirming that such matters should be handled by competent legal au....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
