Gauhati High Court
6: Ms. Sukla Das vs Manik Chandra Das And 3 Ors on 5 September, 2022
Author: Achintya Malla Bujor Barua
Bench: Achintya Malla Bujor Barua
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010180332014
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2066/2014
LEGAL HEIRS ON THE DEATH OF KHITISH CHANDRA MAZUMDAR and 3
ORS
S/O LT. RAKHIT MAZUMDAR, R/O SARDARGAON, MOUZA-
JAMUNAMUKH, P.S. DABAKA, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM.
1.1: SRI KARTIK CH. MAZUMDAR
S/O- LT. KHITISH CH. MAZUMDAR
R/O- SARDARGAON
MOUZA- JAMUNAMUKH
P.S.- DABAKA
DIST.- NAGAON
ASSAM
1.2: SRI PARESH CH. MAZUMDAR
S/O- LT. KHITISH CH. MAZUMDAR
R/O- SARDARGAON
MOUZA- JAMUNAMUKH
P.S.- DABAKA
DIST.- NAGAON
ASSAM
1.3: MS. KALPANA DAS
D/O- LT. KHITISH CH. MAZUMDAR
R/O- SARDARGAON
MOUZA- JAMUNAMUKH
P.S.- DABAKA
DIST.- NAGAON
ASSAM
1.4: MS. PURNIMA DAS
D/O- LT. KHITISH CH. MAZUMDAR
R/O- SARDARGAON
MOUZA- JAMUNAMUKH
P.S.- DABAKA
Page No.# 2/6
DIST.- NAGAON
ASSAM
1.5: MS. ANIMA DAS
D/O- LT. KHITISH CH. MAZUMDAR
R/O- SARDARGAON
MOUZA- JAMUNAMUKH
P.S.- DABAKA
DIST.- NAGAON
ASSAM
1.6: MS. SUKLA DAS
D/O- LT. KHITISH CH. MAZUMDAR
R/O- SARDARGAON
MOUZA- JAMUNAMUKH
P.S.- DABAKA
DIST.- NAGAON
ASSAM
2: SRI BIMAL CHANDRA DUTTA
3: SRI PRADIP CHANDRA DUTTA
4: SRI PARIMAL DUTTA
SERIAL NO. 2
3 and 4 ARE SONS OF LT. DINESH CHANDRA DUTT
R/O DABAKA TOWN
WARD NO. 2
P.S. DABAKA
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN- 782440
VERSUS
MANIK CHANDRA DAS and 3 ORS
S/O SRI GOPAL DAS R/O MANDARTOLI MIKIRGAON, MOUZA-
JAMUNAMUKH P.S. DABAKA, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM PIN- 782440.
2:THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER
NAGAON
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN- 782001.
3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
DABAKA REVENUE CIRCLE
Page No.# 3/6
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN- 782440.
4:THE ASSAM BOARD OF REVENUE
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
PANBAZAR
GUWAHATI-781001
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.B SINHA
Advocate for the Respondent :
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
Date : 05-09-2022
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. S Deka, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. M Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 Sri Manik Chandra Das and Ms. M Barman, learned Junior Government Advocate for the respondents No. 2 and 3 respectively being the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon and the Circle Officer, Dabaka Revenue Circle.
2. The writ petitioners claimed to have purchased a plot of land measuring 7B-2K-6L from the seller Maniram Borah and Jaliram Borah by two registered sale deeds No. 4126/1976 and 4125/1976. The respondent No. 1 herein claims to have purchased 1B-3K-10L of land also from the legal heirs of Maniram Borah and Jaliram Boran in respect of the same land vide sale deed No. 3304/2008. It is stated that the respondent No. 1 had an unregistered sale deed of the year 1971 also in respect of the same plot of land.
3. Be that as it may, Title Suit No. 29/2013 is presently pending in the Court Page No.# 4/6 of the learned Civil Judge, Nagaon, wherein the present petitioners and others had claimed for a decree declaring right, title and interest over the land in question as well as for eviction of the respondent No. 1 herein. Another Title Suit No. 19/2012 had been instituted by the respondent No. 1 against the present petitioners also claiming for declaration of right, title and interest and permanent injunction over the same plot of land. Both the Title Suits are pending.
4. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Circle Officer, Daboka Revenue Circle vide order dated 10.11.2008 had mutated the name of the respondent No. 1 in the land in question. But on an application of the petitioners, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon by the order dated 06.03.2013 had cancelled the mutation so granted in favour of the respondent No. 1. Being aggrieved, the respondent No. 1 instituted Appeal Case No. RA-35(N)/2013 before the learned Assam Board of Revenue against the order dated 06.03.2013 of the Additional Deputy Commissioner.
5. The learned Assam Board of Revenue by the judgment dated 03.03.2014 in Appeal Case No. RA-35(N)/2013 had interfered with the cancellation of the mutation by the Additional Deputy Commissioner. In doing so, the learned Assam Board of Revenue in sub paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5 and 6 onwards of Paragraph 10 have arrived at its conclusion as to why the right, title and interest ought to be in favour of the respondent No. 1. Thereafter, in sub paragraph 8, a conclusion was arrived at that there remains 1B-3K-9L of land at the time of execution of sale deed No. 3304/2008 in favour of the respondent No. 1. In other words, the learned Assam Board of Revenue had arrived at a conclusion that the land which the respondent No. 1 had purchased was over and above the land that the petitioners had purchased, although no material exist on Page No.# 5/6 record to arrive at such conclusion. Secondly, the learned Assam Board of Revenue had decided the question of right, title and interest over the land in question in favour of the respondent No. 1 although jurisdictionally the learned Board could not have done so and more so, when the same question is pending before the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction.
6. For both the reasons, we are of the view that the judgment dated 03.03.2014 of the learned Assam Board of Revenue in Appeal Case No. Ra- 35(N)/2013 would not be sustainable in law. As the respective claims of the petitioners and the respondent No. 1 are that of claiming right, title and interest as well as possession over the land in question, we are of the view that under the law, it would be more appropriate for the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction to decide the issue and more so, when the aforesaid two Title Suits are also pending between the same parties for the same purpose.
7. Pending decision on the question of right, title and interest over the land in question, we are of the view that the conclusion of the learned Assam Board of Revenue should not be given any effect under the law. Accordingly, the judgment dated 03.03.2014 in Appeal Case No. 35-RA(N)/2013 stands interfered.
8. The respective parties are ordered to maintain status-quo over the land in question till the learned Civil Judge, Nagaon decides the respective claims of right, title and interest over the land in question.
9. Accordingly, we request the learned Civil Judge, Nagaon to take up the matter expeditiously and decide the dispute at the earliest. We also require both the petitioners and the respondent No. 1 to cooperate with the proceeding and not to further delay inasmuch as, a lot of delay on the dispute had already been Page No.# 6/6 caused.
The writ petition is disposed of in the above manner.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant