Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/2206/2026 of SUMAN TALUKDAR Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS on 28 April 2026
GAHC010077202026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2206/2026 SUMAN TALUKDAR S/O- LATE BINONDI TALUKDAR, HOUSE NO-19, ANANDA NAGAR, SIX- MILE, KHANAPARA, GUWAHATI, P.S. DISPUR, DIST.- KAMRUP (METRO) ASSAM, PH-
GAHC010077202026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2206/2026
SUMAN TALUKDAR
S/O- LATE BINONDI TALUKDAR, HOUSE NO-19, ANANDA NAGAR, SIX- MILE, KHANAPARA, GUWAHATI, P.S. DISPUR, DIST.- KAMRUP (METRO)
ASSAM, PH- 70860-45946
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
REPRESENTED THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, ASSAM-
06
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP (METRO) HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI
KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
DISPUR REVENUE CIRCLE
BELTOLA
GUWAHATI
KAMRUP (M)
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR I S MAZUMDAR, MISS J MOSSANG,MS M BEGUM
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, REVENUE
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
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 : 29.04.2026 Heard Mr. I. S. Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Das, learned counsel appearing for the State respondent as well as Mr. A. Bhattarcharya, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue Department.
2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks correction of the Dag number, which was inadvertently recorded incorrectly in the mutation order following the demise of the petitioner’s mother in respect of the land in question.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the land originally stood in the name of the petitioner’s father. Upon his demise, the same devolved upon the petitioner and his mother. At the time of mutation, the correct Dag No. 1172 was recorded. However, after the demise of the petitioner’s mother, during rectification of the record of rights, Dag No. 1167 was inadvertently entered instead of Dag No. 1172. In this backdrop, representations have been submitted before the concerned authority from 14.02.2022 to 18.11.2024. However, no action has been taken, compelling the petitioner to file the present writ petition.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, it is admitted that the subject land pertains to Dag No. 1172, which originally stood in the name of the petitioner’s father and, upon his demise, was mutated in favour of the three legal heirs, namely the petitioner, his mother, and his brother.
5. Thereafter, upon the demise of the petitioner’s mother in the year 2022, during the process of rectification of the record of rights, Dag No. 1167 was inadvertently recorded in place of Dag No. 1172. It further appears that despite several representations being submitted, no action has been taken to date. The representations dated 14.02.2022, 09.11.2022, 08.08.2023, and 18.11.2024, annexed to the writ petition, have been perused.
6. In view of the fact that the State respondents have failed to act despite repeated representations by the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of by directing the State authorities to consider and dispose of the representation dated 18.11.2024, submitted before the jurisdictional District Commissioner, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant