WP(C)/998/2018 of SAJAN KUMAR CHOUDHURY Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS on 12 July 2026

GAHC010030062018

2026:GAU-AS:9546

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/998/2018 SAJAN KUMAR CHOUDHURY S/O. LT. ATMA RAM CHOUDHURY, R/O. WARD NO. 2, BHAKATPARA ROAD, NALBARI TOWN, DIST. NALBARI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., DISPUR. 2:THE NALBARI MUNICIAL BORAD REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN NALBARI MUNICIPAL BOARD NALBARI PIN-781335 3:CHAIRMAN NALBARI MUNICIPAL BORAD NALBARI ASSAM PIN-781335 4:DHARMA RAM MEDHI S/O. LATE SUKRAM MEDHI R/O. WARD NO. 1 NALBARI TOWN DIST. NALBARI ASSAM PIN-78133

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH For the Petitioners(s) : Mr. D. Choudhury, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N. Goswami, Govt. Advocate Ms. P. Bhattacharya, Advocate

· Date on which Judgment was reserved : N/A · Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 13.07.2026 · Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative Part of the Judgment : No

· Whether the full Judgment has been Pronounced : Yes JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. D. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Mr. N. Goswami, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and Ms. P. Bhattacharya, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent No. 4.

2. None appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on call.

3. Before taking up the present writ petition for disposal, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the conduct of the

Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, namely, the Nalbari Municipal Board, constituted under the provisions of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956 and the Chairman of the said Municipal Board. The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had initially entered appearance before this Court. However, they subsequently chose not to appear in the instant proceedings.

4. The records reveal that vide an order dated 23.02.2026, the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court was of the opinion that a response from the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was necessary. It was further opined that in the circumstance no response was filed, the records pertaining to the subject matter of the writ petition be produced before this Court. The concerned Government Advocate was instructed to inform the Nalbari Municipal Board to produce the records.

5. The records further reveal that the learned Government Advocates, namely, Mr. N. Goswami and Mr. N. Das, on several occasions’ written communications to the Chairman, Nalbari Municipal Board, enclosing a copy of the order dated 23.02.2026 for production of the relevant records. However, in spite of receipt of the said communications, the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 neither filed any response nor produced the records before this Court. The said action on the part of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 appears to be in direct contravention to the directions passed by this Court in the order dated 23.02.2026.

6. Taking into account that such conduct has interfered with the administration of justice, this Court is of the opinion that the conduct of the Chairman of the Nalbari Municipal Board is required to be reprimanded and certain directions are required to be passed upon the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. This aspect of the matter would be dealt with at a later stage of the present judgment.

7. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the action on the part of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in deleting the name of the Petitioner from the municipal records in respect to the Holding No. 6 of Ward No. 2 and recording the name of the Respondent No. 4 on the basis of a registered sale deed bearing Deed No. 2897/1998.

8. It is seen from the materials on record that the name of the Petitioner's father was originally recorded in respect of Holding No. 310 of Ward No. 1 of the Nalbari Municipal Board. Subsequently, the said holding was renumbered as Holding No. 6 of Ward No. 2 of the Nalbari Municipal Board as is apparent from the municipal tax receipts annexed to the writ petition.

9. It further transpires from the extract of the Municipal Register maintained by the Nalbari Municipal Board which had been annexed as Annexure-18 to the writ petition, that Holding No. 6 is in respect to a plot of land admeasuring 8 Lechas, wherein the name of the Petitioner's father was recorded in the column “Name of the owner of Holding”, while the Respondent No. 4 name is recorded in the column “Present owner of Holding”.

10. It is also apparent from the extract that Holding No. 6 was described to be a Shop House, which is an RCC building of Ground Floor (67 m2) 2 rooms, First Floor 2 rooms (67 m2) and open portion 38 m2.

11. The extract of the Municipal records also show that in respect to Holding No. 7, in the column “Name of the owner of Holding” it was recorded as one Nagarmal Khemka and the Respondent No. 4's was recorded as “Present owner of Holding”. It is also seen from a perusal of the extract of the Municipal Register, that Holding No. 7 had been described as Ek Sali (1 Room) F/covered (40 m2) =ACSR W/S W/D 3 sided W/W and one side P/W P/P P/F Eksali (9 m2) 1 Room RCC (i) G/F (19 m2) 1 Room (ii) F/F 1 Room (19 m2).

12. The extract of the Municipal Register further reveal that the names in respect of both Holding Nos. 6 and 7 were mutated in favour of the Respondent No. 4 on the basis of Registered Sale Deed No. 2897/1998 dated 25.02.1999.

13. The Registered Sale Deed has been brought on record as Annexure-13 to the writ petition. A perusal of the said Registered Sale Deed clearly shows that one Nagarmal Khemka sold in favour of the Respondent No. 4 a plot of land admeasuring 7 Lechas (0.95 Are) along with an old Tin Chali under Holding No. 7, covered by Dag No. 1011 of K.P. Patta No. 114 of Ward No. 1, Nalbari Town (near Nagera Chowk), bounded by: North—Road, South—Self, East—Annapurna Tea Company, West—Road.

14. From a perusal of the aforestated Registered Sale Deed, it would be apparent that the said Sale Deed had no relevance to the land and the Holding No. 6 standing thereupon.

15. Under such circumstances, the mutation so made in favour of the Respondent No. 4 in respect to Holding No. 6 by the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was clearly illegal and misconceived.

16. It is also seen that the Petitioner had categorically alleged that no notice was issued to the Petitioner as required under Section 83 of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956, and the said aspect has not been denied by the Respondent Authorities.

17. Considering the above, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the impugned recording of the name of the Respondent No. 4 as the present owner of Holding No. 6 by the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is illegal and unauthorized.

18. This Court also find it relevant to observe that the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4 could not also show that there was any Deed of Sale whereby the land as well as the structures recorded as Holding No. 6 had been transferred in favour of the Respondent No. 4.

19. Now, let this Court deal with the conduct of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had in fact initially put in their appearance without filling any counter. Thereupon, on 22.11.2023, the learned counsel who was representing the

Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 informed this Court that he had informed the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that he would not be appearing. Accordingly, this Court fixed the matter on 13.12.2023 for the appearance of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 inasmuch as without the materials being placed, this Court would not be able to effectively adjudicate the present dispute.

20. The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 then also did not appear thereafter.

21. On 23.02.2026, this Court categorically opined that the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3's response was necessary for a complete adjudication of the dispute. This Court asked the learned Government Advocate to intimate the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 about filing the response or at least produce the records. The relevant paragraph of the order dated 23.02.2026 is reproduced hereinbelow: “During that time, the Board had, however, not filed any returns. In the opinion of this Court, the response of the Board would be necessary for a complete adjudication. In the alternative, the records pertaining to the subject matter is required to be procured. This Court, accordingly directs the State Counsel to communicate with the Board and also procure the records. The Board, however, would be at liberty to engage their own counsel, if so advised. The present direction has been given under the peculiar facts and circumstances as the earlier counsel has withdrawn from the Board and thereafter, there is no representation.“

22. The records as well as the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate show that not only once but twice the Respondent No. 3 was asked to comply with the order dated 23.02.2026. The instant writ petition was thereupon listed on 31.03.2026, 04.05.2026, 29.05.2026 and on 22.06.2026 when the learned Government Advocate apprised that in spite of communications issued, the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have chosen not to provide the records. Same is the submission today also.

23. The records would show that the present writ petition is pending since 2018 and it is clearly on account of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that this Court could not adjudicate the dispute earlier. It is the opinion of this Court that the action on the part of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to remain away from the proceedings as well as not producing the records in spite of due intimation appears to be an attempt on their part to delay and/or derail the proceedings and this aspect cannot be viewed lightly as it affects the sanctity of the judicial process which would be seriously eroded, if such attempts on the part of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are not dealt with firmly.

24. This Court has the option of either initiating contempt proceedings against the incumbent holding the post of the Respondent No. 3 or such officer of the Respondent No. 2 for whose deliberate act(s) the adjudication of the present proceedings have been stalled. Another option available is imposition of exemplary costs which would act as a deterrent for not repeating in future such conduct.

25. This Court has chosen the second option inasmuch as the second option would be less arduous than the first one. Accordingly, this Court imposes a cost of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) only upon the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

26. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions:

(i) The order whereby the name of the Respondent No. 4 was recorded against Holding No. 6 of Ward No. 2 under the Nalbari Municipal Board is hereby set aside and quashed.

(ii) The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to take effective steps for recording the name of the Petitioner, being the son of Late Atma Ram Choudhury, in respect of Holding No. 6 of Ward No. 2 under the Nalbari Municipal Board.

(iii) The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall deposit the cost of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) only before the Registry of this Court on or before 03.09.2026.

(iv) In the circumstance, the aforesaid amount is not deposited within the stipulated period, the Registry shall forthwith take up the matter with the Bakijai Officer, Nalbari, for recovery of the said amount from the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as arrears of land revenue.

(v) Upon deposit of the said amount, the Registry shall transfer the same to the Assam State Legal Services Authority, which shall, remit the amount to the Sonapur Government Old Age Home, so that the same can be used for the welfare and benefit of the said Home.

(vi) The Registry is also directed to forthwith communicate this judgment to the Respondent No. 3 for due compliance.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant Digitally signed by Satyam Sharma Date: 2026.07.17 07:23:26 +05'30'