The court ensured procedural fairness in land disputes by mandating adherence to the Assam Right to Public Services Act protocols for demarcation applications.

ORDER

11.08.2025 Heard Shri S. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri H.

Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam; Ms. G. Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department; Shri D. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 and Shri A.K. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the private respondent No. 5.

2. Considering the facts and circumstances and the issue involved, this writ petition which is pending since the year 2022 is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

3. The petitioner claims that in the year 2004, he had purchased a plot of land measuring 12.5 lechas covered by Dag No. 1377 of K.P. Patta No.1901 under Mouza Beltola in the district of Kamrup (M) and he is in possession of the land by constructing a house. The respondent No. 5 had also purchased a plot of land measuring 12.5 lechas contiguous to the land of the petitioner on the eastern boundary. In the year 2005, the respondent No. 5 had donated an area of 1.5 lechas to a temple, whereby his land was reduced to 11 lechas. In the year 2017, the petitioner started construction of a pucca boundary wall, which was resisted by the private respondent No.5. That being so, the petitioner had filed an application before the Circle Officer, Dispur Revenue Circle, which however was not acted upon.

4. On the other hand, the respondent No. 5 had also instituted a Boundary Case No. 24/2020 before the Circle Officer, Dispur Revenue Circle. It is the allegation of the petitioner that in the demarcation made on 11.02.2022 in the aforesaid Boundary Case No.24/2020, the concerned Lat Mandal (respondent No. 4) had given undue favour to the private respondent No. 5 by giving more land. The petitioner had accordingly filed an application dated 07.03.2022 before the Circle Officer for re-measurement of the land, as, according to him, the demarcation was not properly done by the concerned Lat Mandal. The said application however was not acted upon and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court.

5. Shri Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a proper and lawful demarcation is a matter of right, more so, when there is no dispute with regard to the purchase of the land made by him in the year 2004. He has submitted that though the respondent No. 5 had also purchased a plot of land contiguous to the land of the petitioner, 1.5 lechas of his land was donated and in the Boundary Case No. 24/2020, the demarcation which was made, had given extra land to the respondent No. 5.

6. Shri Purkayastha, learned counsel for the private respondent No. 5 has however strenuously disputed the aforesaid factual proposition and has submitted that the demarcation has been done in accordance with law.

7. Shri Das, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 has submitted that he had followed the orders passed in the Boundary Case No.24/2020 and has made the demarcation strictly in accordance with law and there is no mala fide exercise of powers.

8. Shri Sarma, learned State Counsel has however raised an issue that once the demarcation was made, there is no provision in law for a further demarcation. He has however submitted that after publication of the Notification dated 21.12.2020 pertaining to the Assam Right to Public Services Act , 2012 the procedure has been laid down whereby an application for demarcation in the prescribed manner is to be submitted before the concerned Circle Officer.

9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and without going to the aspect as regards the inter se rights of the contesting parties over the plot of land, this Court is of the opinion that the interest of justice would be served and equities would be balanced if the petitioner i