Writ jurisdiction should not sustain parallel proceedings while the competent authority’s decision remains pending.

The petitioners, sons and legal successors of Late Jabar Ali @ Jafar Ali, claimed ownership over two plots measuring 1 Bigha and 4 Kathas, originally covered by Dag No. 229, Khatian No. 74, and subsequently recorded under new Dag No. 240 and Patta No. 102 at Chirakuti Part-I, Dhubri.

In connection with an APDCL power plant project, the State Government adopted a policy permitting pattadars who voluntarily relinquished land for the project to receive equivalent land free from premium.

The petitioners relinquished their 1 Bigha 4 Kathas of land and were allotted equivalent land at Gopigaon Part-II. The land was settled in the name of their father, Late Jabar Ali, and Periodic Patta No. 113 was issued in respect thereof.

Subsequently, the Co-District Commissioner, Bilasipara issued a Notice of Hearing dated 31 August 2026 concerning the exchange of land, following a communication from the Bilasipara Municipal Board indicating that land within the municipal area might be required for future development works.

The petitioners submitted a written objection, received by the authority on 8 September 2026, and approached the High Court apprehending an adverse order.

Whether the writ petition should be entertained while the proceedings initiated by the Notice of Hearing dated 31 August 2026 remained pending before the Co-District Commissioner, Bilasipara?

Whether the petitioners should be permitted to raise their jurisdictional and other objections before the Co-District Commissioner, who was required to decide the matter by a reasoned order after granting a proper opportunity of hearing?

Whether any coercive action should be taken against the petitioners before they had an opportunity to pursue an appropriate legal remedy against an adverse decision?

The Court applied the principle that a writ court ordinarily should not conduct parallel proceedings when a competent authority is already seized of the matter and the statutory or administrative proceeding has not reached finality.

The Court further applied the principles of natural justice, requiring the affected parties and other stakeholders to receive a proper opportunity of personal hearing and requiring the authority to pass a reasoned, or speaking, order.

The Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1964, including the requisition proceeding under Section 3(1), and the Assam Thermal Power Generation Promotion Policy, 2025, formed part of the factual and administrative background; however, the Court did not finally determine the validity of the settlement, the alleged cancellation power, or the jurisdictional objection.

The Court noted that the Notice of Hearing proceedings were still pending and that the petitioners had already submitted their written objections.

Since the petitioners could raise before the Co-District Commissioner all grounds urged in the writ petition—including the contention that the proceeding was without authority or jurisdiction—the Court held that keeping the writ petition pending would result in parallel proceedings.

Rather than adjudicating the merits prematurely, the Court directed the Co-District Commissioner to consider the petitioners’ objections, afford a personal hearing to the petitioners and other stakeholders, and conclude the proceeding through a speaking order.

The Court also protected the petitioners against immediate coercive consequences if the eventual order went against them.

The Co-District Commissioner, Bilasipara was directed to conclude the proceedings arising from the Notice of Hearing dated 31 August 2026 after granting a proper personal hearing to the petitioners and all other stakeholders and to pass a speaking order, preferably within one month.

The petitioners were granted ten days to file any additional written objection with supporting documents.

A copy of the speaking order was to be communicated to them forthwith, and no coercive action was to be taken against them for one month after any adverse order, enabling them to pursue an appropriate remedy or make alternative arrangements.

No costs were awarded.