Writ court cannot compel acquisition where land was purchased under subsisting sale deeds.

The Petitioners claimed ownership of 1 Bigha 10 Lechas of land comprised in Dag No. 9, Patta No. 116, Village Nagaon, Kamalpur Revenue Circle, Kamrup (R), allegedly inherited from their father.

They contended that the land was fraudulently mutated in favour of Respondent No. 6, Salini Bhagat, in 2015; the mutation was subsequently cancelled and the land was jointly mutated in the Petitioners’ names in 2016.

The Petitioners further alleged that the Assam Electricity Grid Corporation Ltd. (AEGCL) had constructed a 132 KV Grid Sub-Station over the land without acquiring it or paying compensation.

AEGCL stated that it had purchased 15 Bighas of land, including 5 Bighas 3 Kathas 5 Lechas in Dag No. 9, from Sandip Kumar Bhagat through a sale deed dated 11.12.2013, and had constructed the Grid Sub-Station for public purposes.

Respondent No. 6 relied on a registered sale deed dated 01.03.2014 for 1 Bigha 10 Lechas executed by Biswajit Kakati and Amba Kakati in her favour.

Whether the High Court could direct AEGCL to acquire the Petitioners’ land and pay compensation when AEGCL claimed title under an existing sale deed and had already constructed the Grid Sub-Station.

Whether the Petitioners were entitled to writ relief despite the disputed validity and competing claims arising from the relevant sale deeds.

The Court applied the principle that a registered sale deed remains operative and carries legal effect unless it is cancelled or otherwise set aside in accordance with law.

It further proceeded on the principle that disputed questions concerning title, validity of sale deeds, fraud, and competing ownership claims are not appropriately determined in a writ petition where adjudication by a competent civil court is available.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was expressly cited in the judgment.

The Court found that AEGCL had purchased the relevant portion of Dag No. 9 under a sale deed dated 11.12.2013, which continued to subsist.

Since AEGCL claimed ownership through that deed and had constructed a 132 KV Grid Sub-Station on the land, the Court held that it could not, in the writ proceedings, direct acquisition of land which AEGCL asserted it had already purchased.

The Court also noted that Respondent No. 6’s registered sale deed remained legally effective unless cancelled through appropriate proceedings.

The Petitioners’ allegations that the sale deeds were fraudulent raised disputed questions of title and validity, requiring adjudication before a competent civil court rather than determination through writ jurisdiction.

The dismissal was expressly made without prejudice to the Petitioners’ right to approach a competent civil court to challenge the relevant sale deeds, if so advised.