GAHC010040592023 2025:GAU-AS:15207

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/1204/2023

MUSTAKIN AHMED

S/O- LT. SIRAJUDDIN AHMED, R/O- VILL- HASILIPARA, P.O., P.S. AND DIST.-

GOALPARA, ASSAM, PIN-

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

REP. BY THE DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, ASSAM DISPUR, GHY-6

2:THE SECRETARY

THE ASSAM BOARD OF REVENUE

3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

GOALPARA

ASSAM

4:THE SETTLEMENT OFFICER

GOALPARA

ASSAM

5:MOHAMMED ALI MANDAL

S/O- MOHAR ALI MANDAL R/O- VILL- RAKHARKILLA

P.S. LAKHIPUR

DIST.- GOALPARA

ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR F Z MAZUMDER, MS. A LALA

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, FOR CAVEATOR,MR. A MANNAF,SC, REVENUE

BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

O R D E R

10.11.2025

1. Heard Mr. FZ Mazumder, learned counsel for petitioner. Also heard Mr.

A Mannan, learned counsel for the private respondent.

2. By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 02.02.2021 passed by the Settlement Officer in Misc. Case 01/2018-19, whereby the name of the mother of the private respondent was restored in the revenue record by deleting the name of the petitioner. Such order was assailed before the Assam Board of Revenue in Appeal No. 16 RA (G)/2021. The learned Board of Revenue upheld such decision and dismissed the appeal by its order dated 08.12.2022. Assailing the same, the present application is filed.

3. From the material available on record what is seen is that the private respondent herein claims that his mother was the recorded pattadar in respect of the disputed land, however, her name was deleted at the behest of the present petitioner and the name of the present petitioner was incorporated in the revenue record and accordingly, at the first instance, Misc Case No. 12/2018 was preferred, which was registered at the office of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Balijana Revenue Circle and during its pending, the Settlement Officer of the Goalpara district registered another Misc. Case No. 01/2018-19. The claim of the respondent is that he inherited the plot of land from his mother.

4. On the other hand, it is the claim of the writ petitioner that his predecessor-in-interest acquired ownership of the land in question by virtue of an oral gift executed by the mother of the respondent.

5. In the considered opinion of this court, in essence, the dispute relates to the title of the parties based on their respective claim i.e. as to whether the respondent has inherited the land in question from his mother or whether the mother of the respondent during her lifetime had made an oral gift in favour of the father of the petitioner. Such determination cannot be made either by the revenue authorities or by this court, which requires assertion of facts through evidence.

6. Both the learned counsel for the parties submit that in view of the aforesaid, the parties may be relegated to the competent civil court to ascertain their right, title and interest based on which the revenue record can be corrected. As recorded hereinabove, this court is also of the opinion that such factual determination should be made by competent civil court having jurisdiction.

7. At this stage, both the learned counsel for the parties claim that both of them have been possessing the plot of land in question. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is having his dwelling house over the plot of land and on the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent submits it is agricultural land for cultivation.

8. Be that as it may, taking note of the aforesaid, this writ petition stands disposed of relegating the parties to the competent civil court to ascertain their right, title and interest and possession. Such approach may be made within a period of three months from today.

9. Till such approach is made by either of the parties and any injunction application filed and decided, it is provided that status quo in respect of the plot of land in question be maintained.

10. Wh