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) 1059

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Devashis Baruah, J.
Samsul Hoque, S/O- Late Sahar Ali And Anr – Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Assam Represented By The Commissioner And Secretary To The Government Of Assam, Land And Revenue Department And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) 683 of 2025, WP(C) 678 of 2025, WP(C) 443 of 2025, WP(C) 344 of 2025
Decided On : 22-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. M. Hussain, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. J. Handique, SC, Revenue Ms. U. Das, Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Mr. J. Roy, Sr. Advocate, Mr. S. Sarmah, Advocate

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, any order affecting property rights must strictly adhere to the principles of natural justice by ensuring notice and a fair hearing.

Headnote:(A) Revenue Law - Supervisory jurisdiction - Exercise of review power by revenue authorities - Scope and extent - Quasi-judicial authorities exercising review or supervisory jurisdiction are constrained by the scope of the original proceedings and cannot expand their adjudication to include property or issues not previously in dispute. (Paras 22, 23)

(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Requirement to issue notice - An order passed in revisionary or appellate proceedings without providing an opportunity of hearing to the affected parties violates the principles of natural justice and is arbitrary. (Paras 20, 25)

Facts of the case:
Disputes arose regarding the entry of names in official property records relating to specific plots of land. A lower revenue authority passed an order regarding a specific plot of land, which was later challenged in a revision petition. The appellate authority passed an ex-parte order in the revision, which was subsequently reviewed. The impugned review order included multiple additional plots of land that were never the subject matter of the initial proceedings or the original dispute before any lower revenue forums.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that while the authority was justified in recalling an earlier order that was passed without notice, it exceeded its jurisdiction by expanding the scope of the review to include additional land plots not covered by the original dispute. The court further held that the original revision petition must be decided afresh, ensuring proper service of notice and a fair hearing to all affected parties, while strictly restricting the matter to the land parcel originally in contention.

Issues: Whether the appellate authority, while exercising review or supervisory jurisdiction, can adjudicate upon properties not included in the original proceedings and whether an order passed without notice to the parties violates mandatory procedural fairness requirements.

Ratio Decidendi: An authority exercising review or supervisory jurisdiction is bound by the specific scope of the initial proceedings. Adjudicating upon properties or rights not brought before the primary forum is an act in excess of jurisdiction. Furthermore, any administrative or quasi-judicial action that determines the rights of private parties must comply with the principles of natural justice, which mandates the issuance of prior notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

Result: Petitions allowed in part; the impugned order to the extent of including additional land plots is set aside, and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration regarding the original parcel.

Table of Content
1. historical context and procedural history of the disputed land records. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 12)
2. parties' contentions regarding the scope of review and procedural due process. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
3. court finds jurisdictional excess in administrative review and procedural violations. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
4. direction for remand and clarification of scope for future proceedings. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. M. Hussain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners in all the writ petitions. Mr. J. Handique, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent No.1; Ms. U. Das, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 and Mr. J. Roy, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Sarmah, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos.7 to 12 in all the writ petitions.

2. The four writ petitions which are presently taken up for disposal by this common judgment and order assail the order dated 07.01.2025 passed by the learned Assam Board of Revenue in Case No.5RA(DBR)(RVW)/2022.

3. The Petitioners in WP(C) No.344/2025 and WP(C) No.443/2025 are the Khatiandars of various plots of land. The said petitioners have been issued Khatian No.80 over a land admeasuring 12 bighas 1 katha 15 lechas covered by Dag No.27 of Patta No.79 under village Dumardaha Part II within the Golokganj Revenue Circle in the district of Dhubri, Assam. The said petitioners have also been issued a Khatian being Khatian No.77 over a plot of land admeasuring 24 bighas 2 katha 5 lechas covered by Dag No.31 of Patta No.79 of village Dumardaha Part II under the Golokganj Revenue Circle in the district of Dhubri, Assam.

4. The Petitioners in WP(C) No.683/2025 have been issued a Khatian being Khatian No.60 over a plot of land admeasuring 3 bighas 1 katha 15 lechas covered by Dag No.28 under KP Patta No.79 of village Dumardaha Part II under Mouza-Golakganj in the district of Dhubri, Assam.

5. The writ Petitioner in WP(C) No.678/2025 had purchased the land from the son of the Khatiandar admeasuring 1 bigha 2 kathas 17 lechas under Khatian No.19 of Dag No.40 under Khiraj Patta No.79 of village Dumardaha Part II within the Golokganj Revenue Circle in the district of Dhubri, Assam.

It has been submitted by Mr. M. Hussain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners that all the lands are presently within the Gauripur Revenue Circle in the district of Dhubri, Assam.

6. The records reveal that the Private Respondents filed an application before the Settlement Officer, Dhubri on 17.04.2012 which was registered as Misc. Case No.06/2012-13 seeking deletion of the names of some of the pattadars and the rayoti Khatiandars recorded in the survey record and the correction of the survey records. A perusal of the application which is Annexure-A to the Additional Affidavit filed by the Petitioners in WP(C) No.344/2025 would show that the Private Respondents sought the deletion of the names of Smti. Jayasree Gogoi and Smti. Subasree Gogoi whose names have been shown as pattadars and the names of the Petitioners in WP(C) Nos.344/2025 and WP(C) No.443/2025. The said application further mentions the land wherein such deletion was sought, i.e. the land admeasuring 24 bighas 2 kathas 5 lechas covered by Dag No.2/163(old)/31(new) under village Dumardaha Part-II under Golokganj Revenue Circle which was covered by Rayoti Khatian No.77.

7. Pursuant to the said application, proceedings were initiated by the Settlement Officer, Golokganj Revenue Circle by passing an order on 17.04.2012. On 28.05.2012, the Assistant Settlement Officer disposed of Misc. Case No.06/2012-13 striking out the names of the pattadars, namely, Smti. Jayasree Gogoi and Smti. Subasree Gogoi as well as the names of the Petitioners in WP(C) No.344/2025 and WP(C) No.443/2025 in so far as the land admeasuring 24 bighas 2 kathas 4 lechas covered b

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