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
| 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
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 court emphasized the importance of proper exercise of revisional jurisdiction and the need for valid mutations in land disputes.
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 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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to adhere to principles of natural justice and the prescribed method and procedure when exercising statutory powers.
The court affirmed that a revision petition under the ROR Act can be filed without a time limit, emphasizing the need for a fresh enquiry into land ownership claims, especially in cases of alleged fr....
The court emphasized the limited scope of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and the discretionary nature of the extraordinary remedy granted, as established by the S....
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.