WRIT PETITION 1929/2010 on 7 April 1989

WP(C) 1929/2010BEFORETHE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA

Heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Barkataki, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. M. Bhagabati and Mrs.H.M. Phukan, learned State Counsel.The matter pertains to inclusion of village Kalyahati Sundaridiya (a part of Sundaridiya revenue village) within the territory of Barpeta Municipal Board. According to the petitioners, the said village ought not to have been included within the territory of Barpeta Municipal Board as the said area falls under No.5 Sundaridiya Gaon Panchayat; No.4 Barpeta Anchalik Panchayat; No.23 Sundaridiya Zila Parishad in the district of Barpeta.

In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.6, it has been stated that notice was published and circulated regarding survey and assessment of holdings of the proposed extended area of the Municipal Board. In this connection,the respondent NO.6 has referred to the notification dated 07.04.1989 stating that the same was widely published in Official Gazette and was also published in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta and Barpeta Municipal Board. Subsequently, another notification dated 06.09.1995 was also published.

In paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated thus:- That as regards the statements made in paragraph 7 of the petition the answering deponent begs to reiterate that the extension proposal of Barpeta Municipal Board area was already known to the public vide Government Notification dated 06.09.1995. Moreover, the Notification No.UDD (M) 147/02/219 dated 28.12.2004 was also published in respect of delimination of the proposed new wards. It isalso submitted that the newly assessed area of Kalayahati is covered by the newly created Ward No.13 and 14 but not by Ward No.14 alone. It is also a fact thatSri Niranjan Das, the President of Kalaya Yubak Sangha is a resident of Ward No.13. In terms of the order of this Court, the respondent No.6 has filed another affidavit on 07.09.2012 bringing on record the Notifications dated 06.09.1995 and 28.12.2004, by which inclusion of contiguous areas of the Barpeta Municipal Board, described in the schedule was notified. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners referring to the wards of village Sundaridiya (Part) of Mouza Barpeta appearing after the Dag Nos. 124, 6218 etc appearing in the schedule of the Notification dated 06.09.1995, submits that whole controversy has arisen because of the same.

The petitioners have also filed an additional affidavit bringing on records the voter list of Panchayat Election 2007, Barpeta Municipal Election 2008 and Panchayat Election 2012 to show that in both the voter lists some of the names are common. In this connection, Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the names of Fanidhar Saikia and Kanchan Saikia, appearing in the Panchayat Election voter list of 2007 as well as in the Barpeta MunicipalElection voter list of 2008. Again their names appeared in the Panchayat Election voter list of 2012. Referring to the said anomalies, Mr. Choudhury submits that the matter regarding inclusion or exclusion of the village Kalyahati, a part of Sundaridiya revenue village is still not decided. However, both Mr. Bhagabati and Mrs. H.M. Phukan, learned State counsel submits that the matter was decidedwith the issuance of the aforesaid notification 1995 and if there is any inclusion in both the voter lists i.e. Barpeta Municipal Voter List and Panchayat Voter List, the same is required to be corrected.Considering the matter in its entirety, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents, more particularly the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to look into the aforesaid grievance of the petitioners and then to pass appropriate order taking note of all the attending facts and circumstances and in accordancewith law.

Let the required exercise be carried out with passing of the order as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months.