SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Gau) 367

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) 
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Uttam Lal Gupta, S/o. LT. Gopilal Gupta And Anr. Petitioner
Versus
The Union Of India, Rep. By The Secreetary To The Union Of India Ministry Of Defense And Ors. – Respondent
WP(C) 3263 of 2022 
Decided On : 26-02-2026

Advocates Appeared
For the Appellant :Mr. D. K. Nath, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. J. Handique, Government Advocate: Mr. S. K. Medhi, CGC

Lack of documented ownership by the petitioners precludes their claim for demarcation against established military land possession.

Headnote:(A) Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 - Petitioner claims ownership of land admeasuring 1 Bigha 2 Kathas 3 Lechas - Respondents establish possession of 0.66 Acres through evidence, including military land registers and compensation records - Petitioners failed to provide documentation to support their ownership claim - Dismissal of writ petition upheld. (Paras 2-10)

(B) Ownership and Possession - Without evidence establishing ownership, writ for demarcation cannot be issued against Respondents - Petitioners retain the right to seek recovery of possession in a competent court. (Paras 9-11)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners are owners of a plot of land claimed to be encroached by Army Authorities who have shown legitimate claims to the land in question and provided documents substantiating their possession since 1966.

Findings of Court:
Court finds no merit in the writ petition due to lack of evidence from Petitioners while acknowledging their right to pursue civil claims.

Issues: The main issues included the validity of ownership claims made by the Petitioners and the sufficiency of evidence to support such claims against established documentation by Respondents.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that without appropriate documentation proving ownership, the request for demarcation is invalid, reinforcing the necessity for evidence in dispossession cases.

Result: Writ petition stands dismissed.

Table of Content
1. ownership and donation of land. (Para 2 , 3)
2. defense land measurements and requisition processes. (Para 5 , 6)
3. lack of evidence for petitioners' ownership. (Para 7 , 8)
4. dismissal of petition due to merit. (Para 9 , 10)
5. potential for civil suit without prejudice. (Para 11)

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. D. K. Nath, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and Mr. S. K. Medhi, the learned CGC appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. I have also heard Mr. J. Handique, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

2. It is the case of the Petitioners that the Petitioners are the owners of a plot of land admeasuring 1 Bigha 2 Kathas 3 Lechas at Dag No.06 covered by Kheraj Myadi Patta No.05 at Village Khangar Gaon, under Lumding Mouza in the District of Hojai, Assam.

3. It is further contended by the Petitioners that around 30-35 years back, a plot of land admeasuring 1 Katha 10 Lechas from the land belonging to the Petitioners was donated by the predecessor- in-interest of the Petitioners to the Respondent No.2 for construction of Army Transit Camp at Khangar Gaon (Bighan Pally), Lumding. It is the case of the Petitioners that the Respondent No.2 thereupon trespassed into the remaining lands of the Petitioners for which the Petitioners submitted an application before the Respondent No.4 for carrying out demarcation. Accordingly, a notice dated 06.05.2021 was issued by the Circle Officer, Lanka Revenue Circle to the Army Authorities for demarcation of the land fixing 12.05.2021. However, no steps thereupon was taken on the ground that the Respondent No.2 had not permitted to carry out any demarcation.

4. The record reveals that this Court had issued notice as far back as on 20.05.2022.

5. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had filed an affidavit-in- opposition wherein it is mentioned that the land held by the Respondent No.2 at Lumding is A1 Defence land measuring 0.66 Acres i.e. equivalent to 1 Bigha. It is also mentioned that as per the extract from the Military Land Register, the Dag Number of the land is Dag No.2 (Part) Patta No.1, Village Khangar Gaon, Mouza Lumding, District Nagaon (Presently Hojai District). The same have been also verified in the report on survey of defence land at Lumding Transit Camp under the Station Headquarter Misa held in the month of December, 2013. Apart from that, a fresh survey was conducted in the month of December, 2021 and the report is awaited.

6. In addition to that, it is also mentioned that the said land admeasuring 0.66 Acres was requisitioned w.e.f. 31.07.1966 under the Authority of HQ 41 Sub Area letter No.0244/40/Q3W dated 17.01.1966. Subsequently, the same was acquired under the REQUISITIONING AND ACQUISITION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY ACT , 1952 w.e.f. 04.03.1970 vide Authority of Government of India, Ministry of Defence (Army) letter No.1/2/Assam/ACQ/Team/362-S/5D (Land) dated 30.06.1969 and the DC Nagaon letter No.NRQ 63/66/57 dated 19.02.1970. Possession of the land was also taken as far back as on 31.07.1966 and the compensation amount of Rs.4,982.50p was paid.

7. From a perusal of the pleadings as well as the documents so enclosed therewith shows that though the Petitioners claim ownership of a plot of land admeasuring 1 Bigha 2 Kathas 3 Lechas at Dag No.06 covered by Kheraj Myadi Patta No.05 at Village Khangar Gaon, under Lumding Mouza but there are no documents enclosed showing the Petitioners’ ownership of such lands.

8. On the other hand, the Respondents herein have categorically placed the necessary documents on the basis of which the Respondents claim the ownership over the land measuring 0.66 Acres which is equivalent to 1 Bigha.

9. Taking into account that the Petitioners have not placed any document to show their ownership over the land, the question therefore does not arise for this Court to pass any direction upon the Respondent No.4 to carry out any demarcation by issuing a writ.

10. Under

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top