Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/2551/2026 of DR GAZI SHAMIM AHMED AND 2 ORS Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS on 7 September 2026
GAHC010092902026 2026:GAU-AS:13049 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2551/2026 DR GAZI SHAMIM AHMED AND 2 ORS S/O LATE DR GAZI GIASUDDIN AHMED, R/O TRIBENI PATH, HOUSE NO 197 GANESHGURI CHARALI, GUWAHATI, DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M),
GAHC010092902026
2026:GAU-AS:13049
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2551/2026
DR GAZI SHAMIM AHMED AND 2 ORS
S/O LATE DR GAZI GIASUDDIN AHMED, R/O TRIBENI PATH, HOUSE NO 197
GANESHGURI CHARALI, GUWAHATI, DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM
PINCODE- 781006
2: DR GAZI AMEEN AHMED
S/O LATE DR GAZI GIASUDDIN AHMED
R/O TRIBENI PATH
HOUSE NO 197 GANESHGURI CHARALI
GUWAHATI
DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM PINCODE- 781006
3: DR NASEEM AHMED
S/O LATE DR GAZI GIASUDDIN AHMED
R/O TRIBENI PATH
HOUSE NO 197 GANESHGURI CHARALI
GUWAHATI
DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM PINCODE- 78100
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-
06
2:THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
KAMRUP(M)
GUWAHATI
PINCODE- 781036
3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
DISPUR REVENUE CIRCLE
GUWAHAT
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I CHOUDHURY, R L CHUTIA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPT, BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 08.09.2026 Heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. J. Handique, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 and Mr. N. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
2. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been instituted by the writ petitioners, who claim to be brothers, assailing the rejection of their application for mutation of the land measuring 1 bigha 7.27 lechas covered by Dag No.700 Patta No. 362 Revenue Village- Khanapara, Mouza- Beltola, District- Kamrup(M), Assam.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners had filed an application under the SEVA SETU for carrying out mutation of their aforesaid land by changing their names in place of the earlier owner of the land, from whom by inheritance the land has devolved upon the petitioners.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that they had submitted all relevant documents and data required for effecting the mutation of the land in their names by way of inheritance.
5. However, on the ground that there was certain litigation pending regarding demarcation of the aforesaid portion of land, the prayer for mutation had been rejected on an earlier occasion.
6. Thereafter, a fresh application had been filed on 16th December, 2025. As the said application was not responded to, the petitioners had approached this Court.
7. It has come to the notice of the Court that there was another petition tagged along with this writ petition being WP(C) 6489/2024, which has been closed today on the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner on instruction being issued by the petitioner.
8. It has also been submitted that there was another litigation regarding the demarcation pending before the Circle Officer being Demarcation Case No. 13/2022, which is also in the meantime disposed of. Therefore, it now appears that there is no impediment before the concerned authorities to consider the case of the petitioners for mutation as applied for by the application dated 16.12.2025 on merits.
9. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners has informed that by an order dated 27.02.2026, the application filed on 16.12.2025 has again been rejected, since the concerned lat mandal had submitted a report giving a finding that there are pending court cases.
10. Thus, it is the submission of Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the petitioners would not be averse to filing a fresh application seeking mutation. However, there is an apprehension that due to the earlier rejections, the application, if any, filed by the petitioners may not receive due consideration.
11. Mr. N. Das, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3
has submitted that in the event the petitioners apply afresh, the same will be considered on merits, since now there is no litigation pending regarding the land in issue. Mr. J. Handique, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, has also made a similar submission.
12. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the application is required to be filed under the Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012 (RTPS Act, 2012).
13. In view of the circumstances prevailing, this writ petition is disposed of by giving the petitioners the liberty to make an appropriate application under the RTPS Act, 2012 for mutation of their land.
14. It is further provided that in the event the petitioners make such an application, the concerned authorities shall consider the same on merits, keeping in view the fact that the pending litigation, as reported by the earlier reports of the lat mandal, has now culminated in disposal and there is no litigation pending regarding the same land as of today.
15. On an application being made by the petitioners, the concerned authorities would take appropriate steps within the time frame fixed by the RTPS Act, 2012.
16. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant