ORDER

18.05.2022 Date :

Heard Mr. B.D. Deka, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. D. Barman, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. C.S. Hazarika, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for opposite party nos. 3 to 9.

2. This interlocutory application has been filed by the respondent no.10 in the connected WP(C) 6589 of 2013 with a prayer to modify the judgment and order dated 26.06.2019, so as to protect the interest of the applicant (respondent no. 10 in the writ petition) and issue necessary clarification that the order would not be executed in respect of the land held and possessed by the applicant.

3. The essential background facts are that the opposite party nos. 1 and 2, claim to be the owner of the land measuring 2(two) bighas, out of which the opposite party no.1 is the owner of land measuring 1(one) bigha (13.38 Are), covered by Dag No. 618/1527 and Patta No. 120/98 of Village Sawkuchi under Mouza Beltola, purchased vide registered sale deed bearing No.5445 dated 02.05.2010. The remaining 1(one) bigha land (13.38 Are), covered by Dag No. 618/1527 of Patta No.120/98 of Village Sawkuchi under Mouza Beltola, is owned by the opposite party no.2, having purchased the same by registered sale deed No.5444 dated 02.09.2010. In this regard, the opposite parties no.1 and 2 have placed reliance on the mutation order dated 26.11.2010, passed by the Circle Officer, Dispur Revenue Circle in Mutation Case No.6815/2010-11 and the mutation order dated 30.11.2010 passed by the Circle Officer, Dispur Revenue Circle in Mutation case No. 6816/2010-11.

4. By orders dated 13.09.2011 and 22.09.2011, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (Metropolitan), Guwahati, in the proceedings of CID PS Case No. 14 of 2011, the said property which was attached by exercising power under Section 105 (E) (2) Cr.PC. In the connected writ petition, it was alleged that at the connivance of police personnel, the attached land was encroached and certain constructions had been permitted to come up on the said land. Accordingly, in the connected writ petition, it was projected that the attachment orders were violated when the properties were under custodia legis of the State. Hence, prayer was made for directing the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup Metropolitan, Guwahati, to demolish the unauthorized construction over the said land and to restore the land to its previous position, as a vacant land.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that although the applicant was subsequently impleaded as respondent no.10 in the connected writ petition, but on the date of hearing, the applicant remained unrepresented and accordingly, the stand of the applicant as contained in the affidavit-in- opposition, was not taken note by this Court. It is submitted that the applicant is the legal representative of the original patta holder and claims right of inheritance over the entire patta land and claims proportional right over the land as a co-owner along with other co-owners. It is also submitted that without the consent of the applicant, some co-owners had sold the disputed land to the opposite parties nos. 1 and 2. Accordingly, it is submitted that the opposite parties no. 1 and 2 do not have any right, title and interest over any part of the property. It is further submitted that at the time of attaching the land some time in the year 2011, there is no record of any attachment memo being prepared that the land was in possession of any particular co-owner. Hence, it is submitted that the applicant should be given an opportunity of hearing before the Deputy Commissioner so as to establish her right, title and interest, as well as ownership and possession over the disputed land at the time when the attachment order was made. It is also submitted that the said exercise has been done on the strength of the order of this Court which was passed in the connected writ petition. Hence, unless the applicant is permitted to agitate her grievanc