On The Death Of Nepal Ch Dey His Legal Heir Dayal Ch Dey vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors

Page No.# 1/14
GAHC010208302024

2026:GAU-AS:12581
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5164/2024
ON THE DEATH OF NEPAL CH DEY HIS LEGAL HEIR DAYAL CH DEY
AGE 54 YRS,
S/O- LATE NEPAL CH. DEY,
R/O- BIRUBARI,
P.O AND P.S- PALTAN BAZAR,
DIST- KAMRUP METRO ASSAM, PIN-781001,
REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER BISWAJIT BARUAH, AGE 48
YRS,
S/O- LATE MANIK BARUAH,
R/O- AKASH BLOCK,
FLAT NO-201, SUBHAM HEIGHT, KAHILIPARA ROAD,' NEAR FORENSIC
LABORATORY, KAHILIPRA, GUWAHATI-19,
DIST-KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM.
2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP (M)
GUWAHATI-01
3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
DISPUR REVENUE CIRCLE
4:ASHOK KUMAR GARODIYA
S/O- SHYAM SUNDER GARODIYA

R/O- VILLAGE DWARBANDHA

Page No.# 2/14
MOUZA- BELTOLA
GUWAHATI
DIST- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
5:SANTOSH GARODIYA
S/O- SHYAM SUNDER GARODIYA

R/O- VILLAGE DWARBANDHA
MOUZA- BELTOLA
GUWAHATI
DIST- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
6:DILIP GARODIYA
S/O- SHYAM SUNDER GARODIYA

R/O- VILLAGE DWARBANDHA
MOUZA- BELTOLA
GUWAHATI
DIST- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
7:SRI SUNIL KUMAR KEJRIWAL
(ON THE DEATH OF SRI ROHITASH PRASAD AGARWALA
S/O LATE MEMCHAND AGARWALA) HIS LEGAL HEIR SRI SUNIL KUMAR
KEJRIWAL.
R/O SRCB ROAD BELOW ALLAHABAD BANK
FANCY BAZAR
GUWAHATI-
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M J BARUAH, MR. A. ALI,MR. JITU SAIKIA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE, MR. N G KUNDU,MR. P K
ROYCHOUDHURY,FOR CAVEATOR
Linked Case : WP(C)/3090/2024
ON THE DEATH OF NEPAL CH DEY HIS LEGAL HEIRS DAYAL CH DEY
S/O- LATE NEPAL CH. DEY

R/O- BIRUBARI
P.O AND P.S- PALTAN BAZAR

Page No.# 3/14

DIST- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
PIN-781001


(REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER BISWAJIT BARUAH

S/O- LATE MANIK BARUAH

R/O- AKASH BLOCK
FLAT NO-201

SUBHAM HEIGHT
KAHILIPARA ROAD
NEAR FORENSIC LABORATORY
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI-19
DIST- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP (M)
GUWAHATI-01
3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
DISPUR REVENUE CIRCLE
P.O. AND P.S. -BASISTHA
GUWAHATI
DIST.- KAMRUP(METRO)
ASSAM
PIN- 781029.
4:ASHOK KUMAR GARODIYA
S/O SHYAM SUNDER GARODIYA

R/O- VILLAGE DWARANDHA

Page No.# 4/14

MOUZA- BELTOLA
GUWAHATI
DIST- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
5:SANTOSH GARODIYA
S/O SHYAM SUNDER GARODIYA

R/O- VILLAGE DWARANDHA

MOUZA- BELTOLA
GUWAHATI
DIST- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
6:DILIP GARODIYA
S/O SHYAM SUNDER GARODIYA

R/O- VILLAGE DWARANDHA

MOUZA- BELTOLA
GUWAHATI
DIST- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
7:SRI SUNIL KUMAR KEJRIWAL
(ON THE DEATH OF SRI ROHITASH PRASAD AGARWALA
S/O LATE MEMCHAND AGARWALA) HIS LEGAL HEIR SRI SUNIL KUMAR
KEJRIWAL. R/O SRCB ROAD BELOW ALLAHABAD BANK
FANCY BAZAR
GUWAHATI-1
------------

BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.J. Baruah, Advocate

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. P.K.Roychoudhury, Sr. Advocate
Mr. B.J. Talukdar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. P.K. Medhi, Govt. Advocate
Ms. G. Hazarika, Standing Counsel
Mr. S. Ahmed, Advocate

Page No.# 5/14

· Date on which Judgment was reserved : N/A
· Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 27.08.2026
· 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. M.J. Baruah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner in both the writ petitions. Ms. G. Hazarika, the
learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No.
1; Mr. B.J. Talukdar, the learned Senior Government Advocate
assisted by Mr. P.K. Medhi, the learned Government Advocate
appears on behalf of the State respondents; and Mr. P.K.
Roychoudhury, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S.
Ahmed, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the private
respondents.
2. Both the writ petitions are interconnected and accordingly,
they are taken up for disposal by this common judgment and order.
3. The case of the petitioner herein is that vide the deed bearing
Serial No. 4941 dated 16.03.1966 between Basistha Dewalaya
represented by Sri Sanatan Sharma Doloy and the father of the

Page No.# 6/14
petitioner, land admeasuring 4 Bighas covered by old Dag No. 205
was leased out for a period of 99 years. Subsequent thereto, in the
mutation order reflected in the Sadar Jamabandi of Nisf Kheraj
Patta No. 1, the said 4 Bighas of land contained in Dag No. 205
was mutated on the basis of purchase in the name of the father of
the petitioner. It is also a matter of record that vide a deed bearing
Serial No. 4597 dated 06.07.1962 between Basistha Dewalaya
represented by Sri Sanatan Sharma Doloy and Rohitach Agarwalla
and Shyam Sundar Garodia, a plot of land admeasuring 4 Bighas 3
Kathas 12 Lechas covered by Dag No. 202 (old) was leased out for
a period of 99 years.
4. Subsequent thereto, the land in question was acquired under
the Assam Religious and Charitable Institution of Public Nature Act,
1959 by the Government of Assam and 4 Bighas 3 Kathas 12
Lechas covered by Dag No. 202 which was obtained on lease for a
period of 99 years by Rohitach Agarwalla and Shyam Sundar
Garodia from Basistha Dewalaya was settled with Rohitach
Agarwalla and Shyam Sundar Garodia on realization of premium
and accordingly, the Settlement Officer was directed to correct the
records vide the communication dated 21.11.1995.
5. It is very relevant to take note of that the petitioner's claim is

Page No.# 7/14
qua Dag No. 205 and the claim of the private respondents is
specifically in respect of Dag No. 202.
6. Prior to the filing of the present batch of writ petitions, the
legal representatives of Shyam Sundar Garodia and Rohitesh
Prasad Agarwalla filed a writ petition being WP(C) No. 5449/2019
and the writ petitioner in the present two writ petitions filed
another writ petition being WP(C) No. 7184/2021.
7. It was the case of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 7184/2021 that
the father's name of the petitioner was mysteriously removed from
the record of rights, for which an application was filed before the
Respondent Authorities. On the other hand, it was the case of the
private respondents in the present batch of writ petitions in WP(C)
No. 5449/2019 that a notice was issued by the Circle Officer dated
13.07.2018 making an inquiry into the lands of the private
respondents.
8. This Court disposed of the said writ petitions vide a common
order dated 17.02.2024. Paragraph Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the said
order, being relevant, are reproduced hereinbelow:
“ 8. From a perusal of the said notice, it reveals that in view of an
application submitted by the father of the Petitioner i.e. late Nepal Chandra

Page No.# 8/14
Dey seeking demarcation of the land, the Respondent Authorities have asked
the Petitioners to appear before the said Circle Officer along with the
necessary documents. It is the opinion of this Court that merely by asking the
Petitioners to produce certain documents by an authority do not require any
interference. Under such circumstances, it is the opinion of this Court that the
question of setting aside the notice dated 13.07.2018 does not arise.
9. The Petitioners in WP(C) No.5449/2019 would be well advised to place the
relevant documents before the Circle Officer, Dispur Revenue Circle in support
of their claims.
10. Now coming to the writ petition i.e WP(C) No.7184/2021, it is seen that
amongst the reliefs which have been sought for, one of such relief is that this
Court should declare that the Petitioner is the owner of Dag No.205(old) in
Nisf Kheraj Patta No.1/2 (new) in Village Dwarandha under Beltola Mouza and
that the Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 are the owners of a plot of land measuring 4
Bighas 3 Kathas 12 Lechas covered by Dag No. 202(old) in Patta No.1/2 (new)
in village Dwarandha, Mouza Beltola in the District of Kamrup. In the opinion
of this Court, such a relief cannot be granted in a proceedings under Article
226 of the Constitution and the Petitioner, if he desire such a relief for
declaration, the same has to be done before the Civil Court. As regards the
other two reliefs as sought for in the writ petition, it is seen that the
Respondent Authorities are already taking up such action and in consequence
thereof have issued notice dated 13.07.2018 which have been put to challenge
in WP(C) No.5449/2019. Under such circumstances, it is the opinion of this
Court that as the matter is pending before the Circle Officer, Dispur Revenue
Circle, the Petitioner would be well advised to take appropriate steps before
the said authority.
12. Taking into account the above, this Court therefore disposes of the both

Page No.# 9/14
the writ petitions with the following observations and directions:
(i) The notice dated 13.07.2018 impugned in WP(C) No.5449/2019 is not
interfered with and the Petitioners would be well advised to approach the
Circle Officer, Dispur Revenue Circle by placing the necessary documents as
sought for.
(ii) This Court is not inclined to issue any declaration as sought for in WP(C)
No.7184/2021. However, it is observed that the rejection of the said prayer for
issuance of declaration shall not preclude the Petitioners in both the writ
petition to approach the competent Court of law seeking declarations, if need
be. As regards the other reliefs, which have been sought for i.e. for
demarcation as well as for correction of the records, the same being now be
taken into consideration by the Circle Officer, Dispur Revenue Circle and this
Court directs the Circle Officer, Dispur Revenue Circle to bring the said
proceedings to a logical conclusion in accordance with law within a period of 6
(six) months from today. The Registry is directed to serve a copy of the instant
order to Mr. H. Sarma, the learned Standing counsel for due compliance.
(iii) This Court however would like to observe that the land claimed by the
Petitioners in WP(C) No.5449/2019 arises out of Dag No.202 whereas the land
which has been claimed by the Petitioner in WP(C) No.7184/2021 arises out of
Dag No.205(old). This Court in the preceding segments of the instant order
has categorically mentioned the various dags which were curved out of the
above mentioned two dags. The Circle Officer, Dispur Revenue Circle shall duly
take note of while deciding the said aspects.
(iv) The interim order so passed earlier in WP(C) No.5449/2019 is vacated.”
9. From a perusal of the above directions passed by this Court, it

Page No.# 10/14
is clear that this Court did not interfere with the notice dated
13.07.2018 which was issued to the private respondent and rather
gave liberty to the petitioners in WP(C) No. 5449/2019 to approach
the Circle Officer, Dispur Revenue Circle by placing the necessary
documents sought for.
10. Insofar as the relief which was sought for by the present
petitioner in WP(C) No. 7184/2021, this Court categorically held
that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the question of granting
any declaration to the petitioner in respect of the petitioner's rights
over Dag No. 205 cannot be made and the petitioner was granted
the liberty to approach the Civil Court seeking appropriate
declarations. However, insofar as the relief sought for demarcation
as well as correction of the records, this Court directed the Circle
Officer, Dispur Revenue Circle to bring the said proceedings to a
logical conclusion in accordance with law within a period of 6
months from the date of the said order.
11. Pursuant thereto, the order dated 01.06.2024 was passed by
the Circle Officer, Dispur Revenue Circle which is assailed in WP(C)
No. 5164/2024.
12. Further to that, it is noticed that on account of construction

Page No.# 11/14
being carried out by the private respondents and as the
demarcation proceedings were claimed to be not complete, the
petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court seeking various
directions which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.
3090/2024. The learned Coordinate Bench of this Court issued
notice vide an order dated 19.07.2024.
13. During the pendency of the writ petition being WP(C) No.
3090/2024, the order of the Circle Officer dated 01.06.2024 which
was passed prior to the filing of the writ petition was brought to
the notice of this Court on 21.08.2024 and resultantly, the
petitioner filed the second writ petition being WP(C) No.
5164/2024 challenging the order dated 01.06.2024.
14. This Court has perused the order dated 01.06.2024 which is
impugned in WP(C) No. 5164/2024. Further to that, pursuant to
the orders passed by this Court on 21.04.2026 and 03.08.2026, an
affidavit was filed by the Circle Officer, Dispur Revenue Circle which
is also duly perused.
15. Upon reading the impugned order dated 01.06.2024 conjointly
with the affidavit filed by the Circle Officer, it transpires therefrom
that from old Dag No. 205 various Dags were created during the

Page No.# 12/14
recent settlement operation. They were Dag Nos. 2337, 2338,
2341, 2342, 2345, 2346, 2350 and 2391. It is also relevant to
observe that Dag No. 2356 was at a later stage renumbered from
Dag No. 2341. The trace map pursuant to the settlement operation
was enclosed as Annexure-A.
16. This Court has also taken note that Dag No. 202 is completely
distinct from Dag No. 205. Though the southern boundary of Dag
No. 202 is Dag No. 205, the land of the private respondents which
was initially settled as Dag No. 202 was subsequently renumbered
pursuant to the settlement operation as Dag Nos. 2657 and 2658.
17. In the backdrop of the above, if this Court now takes note of
Annexure-B to the said affidavit filed by the Circle Officer which are
the record of rights, i.e., the Jamabandi, in respect of Dag No. 202
as well as the new Dags which were created pursuant to the
settlement operation, and similarly Dag No. 205 along with the
new Dags so created pursuant to the settlement operation, it
would show that neither the petitioner nor the petitioner's
predecessor's name appears in the record of rights of Dag No. 205
or its new Dags so created. The impugned order dated 01.06.2024
also provides the details which corresponds to the trace map. From
the above, it is apparent that the lands of the private respondents

Page No.# 13/14
are clearly identifiable by the boundaries mentioned in the
impugned order, except that on the north where instead of Dag No.
2327, it should have been Dag No. 2326.
18. Taking into account the above, this Court is of the opinion that
the common order dated 17.02.2024 passed by this Court in WP(C)
No. 5449/2019 and WP(C) No. 7184/2021 has been duly complied
with inasmuch as, as regards the dispute concerning the
identification of the land of the private respondents, the same had
been clearly identified.
19. The trace map enclosed as Annexure-A to the affidavit filed by
the Circle Officer also makes it clear which are the Dags which
were created from the original Dag No. 205 and the copy of the
Jamabandis enclosed also shows the names of the persons
mutated against the said new Dags so created from Dag No. 205 in
question. These persons are not parties to the present
proceedings.
20. In view of the above, this Court disposes of both the writ
petitions with the following observations and directions:
(i) The impugned order dated 01.06.2024 does not call for
any interference.

Page No.# 14/14
(ii) The materials on record clearly show that the land of the
private respondents is distinct and identifiable in the revenue
records.
(iii) The various Dags which have been created from Dag No.
205 have been mutated in the names of other persons other
than the private respondents.
(iv) The relief sought for by the petitioner in both the writ
petitions stands rejected.
(v) The rejection of the reliefs in the present writ petitions
shall not preclude or prejudice the petitioner from
approaching the competent Court of civil jurisdiction seeking
appropriate declarations and consequential reliefs qua those
persons whose names have been inserted in the various Dags
which were created pursuant to the settlement operation from
Dag No. 205.
(vi) No costs.
JUDGE
Digitally signed by Satyam Sharma
Date: 2026.09.02 07:15:57 +05'30'
Comparing Assistant