WP(C)/2908/2025 of HABEL UDDIN MANDAL ALIAS HABEL Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS on 6 September 2026

ORDER

07.09. 2026 Heard Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Barman, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and Ms. N. Bordoloi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this writ petition had been initiated praying for directions to the respondent authorities to demarcate the land of the petitioner covered by Dag No. 1232, Patta No.177 situated at village- Suapata Part-I, Mouza-Bilasipara, Revenue Circle-Bilasipara, Dist-Dhubri, Assam.

3. The respondent authorities do not dispute the ownership and possession of the petitioner over the land so described but have taken a stand that, on a field enquiry, the land in respect of which the demarcation has been sought by the applicant has been eroded up to a radius of 1 (one) km. According to the affidavit, as a result of such erosion, the remaining portion of land could not be matched with the records available in the office of the Circle Officer, Bilasipara Revenue Circle.

4. It has also been mentioned that the land is located in a char area which is highly prone to flooding and that furthermore the demarcation could not be carried out owing to non-submission of the consent of the neighboring co- pattadars and their existence as a reasonable apprehension of a law-and-order issue. Additionally, in the absence of a notional field boundary or ali, the demarcation sought could not be carried out.

5. This Court is reluctant to accept that a demarcation of land, which is admitted to be in the lawful and legal ownership of the petitioner, cannot be demarcated out by the concerned authorities. There may be difficulties in identifying the land due to the reasons which have been stated in the affidavit-in-opposition, but that cannot absolve the authorities of taking procedures to solve the issues and demarcate the land which lawfully belongs to citizens.

6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent No.2 (District Commissioner) to take into account the requirement of the petitioner to have his land demarcated for lawful use and also the stand of the CDC in which it says the demarcation is facing difficulty. The respondent No.2 shall thereafter make arrangements for the land of the petitioner to be identified and demarcated to the extent possible and in the event any portion of the land of the petitioner has been eroded, the extent of the same shall also be informed to the petitioner, within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant