SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 15787

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Devashis Baruah, J
Samsul Hoque – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam – Respondent
WP(C)/683/2025|WP(C)/678/2025|WP(C)/443/2025|WP(C)/344/2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M. Hussain
For the Respondents: J. Handique, U. Das, J. Roy, S. Sarmah

An appellate or revisional court, when exercising review jurisdiction, cannot expand the scope of the original proceedings to adjudicate upon land plots not constituting the subject matter of the initial dispute, and must adhere to principles of natural justice by providing notice to affected parties.

Headnote:(A) Assam Board of Revenue Act, 1962 - Section 7 - Review jurisdiction - Scope - Reviewing authority cannot travel beyond the scope of the original proceedings - If the underlying matter concerned only one specific plot of land (Dag No. 31), the tribunal cannot issue directions concerning other plots (Dag Nos. 27, 28, 29, 30, 40 & 302) in its review order. (Para 22).

(B) Natural Justice - Ex-parte orders - Revisional authorities exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, must issue notice to affected parties before passing orders - Violation of natural justice renders the order arbitrary. (Para 20).

Facts of the case:
Multiple writ petitions were filed challenging the order of the Assam Board of Revenue, which, while reviewing an earlier ex-parte order in a revision petition, issued directions affecting land plots that were not subject to the original dispute before the Settlement Officer. The original case concerned only Dag No.31, but the impugned order expanded the scope to include several other Dags.

Findings of Court:
While the Board was justified in recalling its earlier ex-parte order due to an error apparent on the record (lack of notice), it exceeded its jurisdiction by including land plots not previously contested in the underlying proceedings.

Issues: Whether the Assam Board of Revenue could expand the scope of a review petition to include land plots not involved in the original controversy and whether the initial revision order violated the principles of natural justice.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate or revisional authority exercising review jurisdiction is confined to the scope of the original dispute. Jurisdiction cannot be invoked to adjudicate rights over subject matter not forming part of the primary case, and any revisionary order passed without notice to interested parties is contrary to the principles of natural justice and unsustainable.

Result: Partly allowed. The impugned order of the Board was set aside to the extent it exceeded the original scope, and the Board was directed to decide the revision petition afresh after hearing all parties.

Table of Content
1. background and procedural history of the revenue disputes. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
2. parties' contentions regarding the scope of the board of revenue's order. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
3. importance of natural justice and notice in supervisory proceedings. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
4. review jurisdictions are limited to the original subject matter. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr. M. Hussain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners in all the writ petitions. Mr. J. Handique, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent No.1; Ms. U. Das, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 and Mr. J. Roy, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Sarmah, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos.7 to 12 in all the writ petitions.

2. The four writ petitions which are presently taken up for disposal by this common judgment and order assail the order dated 07.01.2025 passed by the learned Assam Board of Revenue in Case No.5RA(DBR)(RVW)/2022.

3. The Petitioners in WP(C) No.344/2025 and WP(C) No.443/2025 are the Khatiandars of various plots of land. The said petitioners have been issued Khatian No.80 over a land admeasuring 12 bighas 1 katha 15 lechas covered by Dag No.27 of Patta No.79 under village Dumardaha Part II within the Golokganj Revenue Circle in the district of Dhubri, Assam. The said petitioners have also been issued a Khatian being Khatian No.77 over a plot of land admeasuring 24 bighas 2 katha 5 lechas covered by Dag No.31 of Patta No.79 of village Dumardaha Part II under the Golokganj Revenue Circle in the district of Dhubri, Assam.

4. The Petitioners in WP(C) No.683/2025 have been issued a Khatian being Khatian No.60 over a plot of land admeasuring 3 bighas 1 katha 15 lechas covered by Dag No.28 under KP Patta No.79 of village Dumardaha Part II under Mouza-Golakganj in the district of Dhubri, Assam.

5. The writ Petitioner in WP(C) No.678/2025 had purchased the land from the son of the Khatiandar admeasuring 1 bigha 2 kathas 17 lechas under Khatian No.19 of Dag No.40 under Khiraj Patta No.79 of village Dumardaha Part II within the Golokganj Revenue Circle in the district of Dhubri, Assam.

It has been submitted by Mr. M. Hussain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners that all the lands are presently within the Gauripur Revenue Circle in the district of Dhubri, Assam.

6. The records reveal that the Private Respondents filed an application before the Settlement Officer, Dhubri on 17.04.2012 which was registered as Misc. Case No.06/2012-13 seeking deletion of the names of some of the pattadars and the rayoti Khatiandars recorded in the survey record and the correction of the survey records. A perusal of the application which is Annexure-A to the Additional Affidavit filed by the Petitioners in WP(C) No.344/2025 would show that the Private Respondents sought the deletion of the names of Smti. Jayasree Gogoi and Smti. Subasree Gogoi whose names have been shown as pattadars and the names of the Petitioners in WP(C) Nos.344/2025 and WP(C) No.443/2025. The said application further mentions the land wherein such deletion was sought, i.e. the land admeasuring 24 bighas 2 kathas 5 lechas covered by Dag No.2/163(old)/31(new) under village Dumardaha Part-II under Golokganj Revenue Circle which was covered by Rayoti Khatian No.77.

7. Pursuant to the said application, proceedings were initiated by the Settlement Officer, Golokganj Revenue Circle by passing an order on 17.04.2012. On 28.05.2012, the Assistant Settlement Officer disposed of Misc. Case No.06/2012-13 striking out the names of the pattadars, namely, Smti. Jayasree Gogoi and Smti. Subasree Gogoi as well as the names of the Petitioners in WP(C) No.344/2025 and WP(C) No.443/2025 in so far as the land admeasuring 24 bighas 2 kathas 4 lechas covered by Khatian No.77, Dag No. 2/163(old)/31

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top