WP(C)/2816/2025 of MD DILDAR ALI Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR on 16 June 2026

GAHC010111382025

2026:GAU-AS:8750

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2816/2025 MD DILDAR ALI S/O. AMIR ALI, R/O. AZARA, MOUZA -RAMCHARANI, P.O. AZARA, P.S. AZARA, GUWAHATI, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN 781017. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP. HEREIN BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT, ADDRESS- I BLOCK, 2ND FLOOR, ASSAM SECRETARIAT (CIVIL), DISPUR, GUWAHATI, DIST. KAMRUP (M), PIN 781006, ASSAM. 2:SRI KUMUD DAS S/O. LATE DHARMESWAR DAS ADDRESS BHAKATABORI GOROL P.O. BHATTAPARA P.S. AZARA GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP (M) PIN 781017 ASSAM For the Petitioner(s) :Mr. S. Chamaria, Advocate For the Respondents(s) :Ms. P.R. Mahanta SC, Revenue Ms. B. Sharma, Advocate Ms. M. Barman, GA

BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH O R D E R 17.06.2026 Heard Mr. S. Chamaria, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. H. Das, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent No.2, Ms. M. Barman, learned Government Advocate and Ms. P.R Mahanta, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 15.05.2025 passed by the learned Assam Board of Revenue in exercise of powers under Section 147(a) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, 1886. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that while the petitioner is claiming right over the land on the basis of having purchased the land by way of an Auction Sale held on 08.12.1976 (Auction Sale No.702/477/1975-76) followed by mutation granted on 12.04.1979, the respondent No.2 on the other hand claims that the land belongs to his father, who was a recorded Pattadar of 01 (one) Bigha of land under Dag No.124 and Chitha Mutation granted on 14.05.1971. It is the case of the respondent No.2 that they are in continuous possession and have been paying the land revenue.

3. It is well settled that Revenue Court’s jurisdiction is limited only to decide as to from whom the revenue is to be collected. The Revenue Courts do not have the authority or jurisdiction to decide the title over the property in question. It is the opinion of this Court that as the petitioner on one hand as well as the respondent No.2 on the other hand are claiming their respective title over the land in question, such title has to be proved before the Civil Court by filing an appropriate suit for declaration with consequential reliefs.

4. Mr. S. Chamaria, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in view of the actions on the part of the respondent No.2, the right, title and interest of the petitioner have been clouded and as such, the petitioner would like to prefer an appropriate suit seeking declaration of right, title and interest including consequential reliefs.

5. It is also well settled that any decree passed by the Civil Courts as regards right, title and interest over a land, would be binding upon the Revenue Courts and as such, it is therefore, the opinion of this Court that all orders which have been passed by the Revenue Courts which are the subject matter of the present proceedings shall be subject to any suit so filed by the parties herein before a competent Court of Civil jurisdiction.

6. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant