Title declarations and consequential reliefs concerning disputed revenue entries must be pursued before the competent civil court.

The petitioner’s predecessor claimed rights over 4 Bighas of land covered by old Dag No. 205 under a 99-year lease deed dated 16 March 1966, followed by mutation in his favour.

The private respondents claimed 4 Bighas 3 Kathas 12 Lechas covered by old Dag No. 202, which had been leased to Rohitash Agarwalla and Shyam Sundar Garodia under a deed dated 6 July 1962 and subsequently settled in their favour by the State after acquisition under the Assam Religious and Charitable Institution of Public Nature Act, 1959.

Earlier, in WP(C) Nos. 5449/2019 and 7184/2021, the High Court declined to grant declarations of title under Article 226, directed the parties to place their documents before the Circle Officer, and directed the Circle Officer to conclude the demarcation and record-correction proceedings within six months.

Pursuant thereto, the Circle Officer passed an order dated 1 June 2024 identifying the land claimed by the private respondents.

The Court applied the principle that disputed questions of title and requests for declaratory relief ordinarily cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution and must be pursued before the competent civil court.

It also applied the principle that revenue authorities may examine demarcation, identification of land, and correction of revenue records in accordance with law, subject to the limits of their jurisdiction.

The Assam Religious and Charitable Institution of Public Nature Act, 1959 was relevant to the historical acquisition and settlement of the land claimed by the private respondents.

The earlier common order dated 17 February 2024 governed the scope of the Circle Officer’s proceedings and required identification of the lands arising from old Dag Nos. 202 and 205.

The Court examined the Circle Officer’s order dated 1 June 2024 together with the subsequent affidavit, trace map, and Jamabandis.

It found that old Dag No. 205 had been subdivided into new Dag Nos. 2337, 2338, 2341, 2342, 2345, 2346, 2350 and 2391, with Dag No. 2341 later renumbered as Dag No. 2356.

In contrast, old Dag No. 202 had been renumbered as Dag Nos. 2657 and 2658, and remained distinct from Dag No. 205 notwithstanding that Dag No. 205 formed its southern boundary.

The Jamabandis did not contain the name of the petitioner or his predecessor in respect of old Dag No. 205 or its new Dags, while the new Dags were mutated in favour of persons who were not parties to the writ proceedings.

Accordingly, the Court held that the private respondents’ land was identifiable from the revenue records and that the earlier directions had been substantially complied with.

The Court noted a minor boundary-description error—Dag No. 2327 should have been Dag No. 2326—but found that this did not undermine the identification of the land.

Any title dispute involving the persons recorded in the new Dags required adjudication by a civil court, not determination in the writ proceedings.

The reliefs sought in both writ petitions were rejected, with no order as to costs.

The petitioner was left at liberty to approach the competent civil court for declarations and consequential reliefs against the persons whose names had been entered in the new Dags carved out of old Dag No. 205; such rejection would not prejudice those proceedings.