GAHC010264632025

2026:GAU-AS:5752 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/7203/2025 GIRIDHAR KALITA S/O- LATE JYOTISH KALITA, R/O- VILLAGE- KHETRIHARDIA/MAJARKURI, P.S. HAJO, DISTRICT- KAMRUP (R), ASSAM, PIN- 781102 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6

2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KAMRUP AMINGAON ASSAM

3:SMTI. AFREEN HUSSAIN THE CIRCLE OFFICER HAJO REVENUE CIRCLE .

DISTRICT- KAMRUP (R)

ASSAM

4:SMTI REHULI DEFUSHA LAT MANDAL HAJO REVENUE CIRCLE KAMRUP (R)

ASSAM

5:SRI RANGAN SARMA LAT MANDAL HAJO REVENUE CIRCLE KAMRUP ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. T SOM, MS. J SARMA,MS. M NATH,G IMTIAZ,MR. A IKBAL ,MS. A MAHANTA,MS. U HAZARIKA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. SHEELADITYA (R4,5),P KHATANIAR(R3),MR.

U S BORA (R3),SC, REVENUE BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

ORDER

27.04.2026 Heard Mr. G. Imtiaz, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. Also heard Ms. N. Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department, Assam, appearing for the respondent No. 1, Mr. H. Sharma, learned Additional Senior Government Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, Mr. U.S. Bora, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 and Mr. Sheeladitya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 4 & 5.

2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 17.04.2025, passed in Mutation Case No. KAM/HAZ/2024- 25/2025000110930/FMUT, and seeks restoration of the petitioner’s mutation dated 16.06.2023 in Mutation Case No. KAM/HAZ/2022-

23/31077/OMUTC.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner claims to be the lawful purchaser and pattadar of land measuring 1 Katha 10 Lechas, purchased through a registered Sale Deed No. 508/2023 dated 10.04.2023 from the legal heirs of Late Dhonu Keot, whose family held a demarcated 30-lecha share from the ancestral property of Late Asom Keot. Upon due enquiry, field verification, and compliance with the statutory procedure, mutation was granted to the petitioner on 16.06.2023, and his name was entered into the Jamabandi in respect of the land in question. However, upon facing disturbance from the private respondents, the petitioner was compelled to file a title suit, being T.S. No. 169/2024, along with Misc. (J) Case No. 126/2024, wherein the learned trial court was pleased to grant an injunction by order dated 03.08.2024, restraining interference with the petitioner’s possession. Despite the aforesaid injunction, the mutation was cancelled without notice to, or hearing of, the petitioner.

4. Mr. G. Imtiaz, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, submits that though an appeal has been filed against the cancellation of the mutation, seeking restoration thereof before the office of the District Commissioner, Kamrup (R), on 13.08.2025, the same has not yet been considered or disposed of.

5. Per contra, Mr. Sheeladitya, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 & 5, submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable inasmuch as, under the provisions of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 (hereinafter referred to as the “Regulation, 1886”), an appeal lies against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer (hereinafter referred to as the “SDO”) cancelling the mutation of the petitioner. He further submits that the representation dated

13.08.2025 to the District Commissioner, enclosed as Annexure-9 in the writ petition, cannot be construed as an appeal under Regulation

147 of the Regulation, 1886.

6. Mr. H. Sharma, learned Additional Senior Government Counsel for respondent No. 2, fairly submits that under Regulation 147 of the Regulation, 1886, an appeal against the order of the SDO lies before the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner, and since the appeal has already been filed in the instant case, the writ petition may be disposed of by directing the a