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 petitioners’ father, Late Phanindra Das was recorded vide a Mutation Order dated 05.12.1981. After the death of Late Phanindra Das, the names of the petitioners were recorded in the revenue records in respect of the subject-plot by right of inheritance vide a Mutation Order dated 15.02.2017 passed in Mutation Case no. 3824/2016-2017.

5. The petitioners have further stated that on the basis of a Sale Deed dated 29.09.2023, a part of the subject-plot measuring 1 Bigha 2 Kathas 10 Lessas came to be mutated in favour of the respondent no. 5, without any notice to the petitioners. The petitioners having learnt about the said mutation, had filed an application before the respondent no. 3 on 02.09.2024 for cancelation of the Mutation Order passed in favour of the respondent no. 2 in respect of the part of the subject-plot, measuring 1 Bigha 2 Kathas 10 Lessas.

6. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on receipt of the application filed by the petitioners seeking cancellation of the mutation made in favour of the respondent no. 5, the respondent no. 3 has already registered a case, Misc. Case no. 85/2024-2025 and had also issued notice to the petitioners and the respondent no. 5 for a hearing on 04.12.2024. Mr. Sinha has further submitted that though the notice was issued on 13.11.2024 for a hearing on 04.12.2024, the respondent no. 3 did not hold the hearing on 04.12.2024. He has further submitted that the respondent no. 3 has not proceeded further with the case, Misc. Case no. 85/2024-2025 thereafter.

7. Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 has submitted that since the application filed by the petitioners seeking cancellation of the mutation passed in favour of the respondent no. 5 has already been registered as Misc. Case no. 85/2024-2025 and the respondent no. 3 is in seisin of the matter, the writ petition can be disposed of, at this stage, with a direction to the respondent no. 3 to proceed further with the proceedings of Misc. Case no. 85/2024-2025 to bring the proceedings to its logical conclusion within a reasonable time period. Mr. Sarma has further submitted that a period of three months would be a reasonable time period.

8. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners has agreed to the submissions of Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam regarding disposal of the Misc. Case no. 85/2024-2025 within a period of three months.

9. Having regard to the issues involved and the broad consensus arrived at by the learned counsel for the parties, in the afore-stated manner, this Court is of the considered view that instead of keeping this writ petition pending, the writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 3