A writ petition challenging administrative orders regarding land may be disposed of if the core dispute over title and possession is already being adjudicated in a pending Regular First Appeal (RFA) before the court.

ORDER

Heard Shri R. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitionerS. Also heard Shri J. Handique, learned State Counsel, Assam as well as Ms. M Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department, Assam.

This writ petition was instituted in the year 2018 with the following prayer:

“It is therefore prayed that Your Lordship would be pleased to admit this petition, issue a Rule calling upon the respondents show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus shall not be issued thereby setting aside the impugned Speaking Order under Memo No. DCL.10/2017-8/22 dated 22.05.2018 passed by the respondent No.2 and notice under Memo No.- GRC-17/MT5-2018/42 dated 29.05.2018 issued under Rule 18 (3) (a) (i) of Assam Land and Revenue Regulation 1886 by the respondent No. 3 and on perusal of the Show Cause, if any, and after hearing the parties Your Lordship would be pleased to make the Rule absolute and/or Pass such other order or orders as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper. In the interim, Your Lordship would be pleased to restrain the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from executing the impugned Order under Memo No. DCL.10/2017-18/22 dated 22.05.2018 passed by the respondent No.2 and notice under Memo No.-GRC-17/MIS-2018/42 dated 29.05.2018 issued under Rule 18 (3) (9) (i) of Assam Land and Revenue Regulation' 1886 the respondent No.3 ill disposal of the instant Writ Petition.”

As per the facts projected, in the year 1994, the petitioners who belong to Mising Community were excommunicated for which they had to leave their ancestral place. However, one Moniram Doley had allowed the petitioner no. 1 to stay over a plot of land measuring 2 bighas and the petitioners continue to possess the said land. However, in the year 1998, the Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji had allotted the aforesaid land to the respondent no. 4 and in the year 2002, the Annual Patta was converted into Periodic Patta No. 99. The said action was the subject matter of challenge in an appeal filed by the petitioners, being RA.75/DMJ/2011. In the said appeal, a report was called for from the concerned Circle Officer. After consideration of the materials on record, the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji had passed a judgment dated 18.07.2011 in which, a clear opinion was expressed that the aspect of grant of Periodic Patta was not proper inasmuch, as it was the petitioners, who were in possession of the land in question. However, an observation was made that the parties may approach the concerned Civil Court. It transpires that thereafter the respondent nos. 4 and 5 had instituted T.S. No. 4/2011 in the Court of the District Judge, Dhemaji. The said suit was contested by the present petitioners and the same was dismissed on 08.02.2016. The said judgment and decree was, however, put to challenge in RFA/35/2016.

Shri Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly submitted that since in the order dated 18.07.2011, there was a mention that the parties should approach the appropriate Civil Court which was in fact done by the respondent nos. 4 and 5 unsuccessfully and the said judgment is the subject matter of challenge, the present writ petition be disposed of with an observation that the order which may be passed in the appeal would govern the field. He has also informed this Court that though the RFA/35/2016 was initially instituted in this Court due to certain change in pecuniary jurisdiction, the same was remanded back. However, it was detected that the initial judgment and decree was passed by the learned District Judge, Dhemaji and therefore, the records have again been transmitted to this Court and the same is pending for final adjudication.

Both Shri Handique, learned State Counsel and Ms. Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue have not raised any serious objection to the proposition advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that since the dispute is presently under c