GAUHATI HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON MAHIR UDDIN AHMED V/S THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS.

GUWAHATI, India, Jan. 12 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Dec. 11:

1. Heard Shri K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri N. Das, learned State Counsel for the State respondents as well as Ms. G. Hazarika, the learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department.

2. An order dated 07.10.2024 passed by the Addl. District Commissioner, Barpeta in RA Case No. 02/2022-23 is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. By the said order, the application filed by the respondent nos. 5- 7 for cancellation of name of the father of the petitioner in the mutation has been allowed.

3. At the outset, it has been noted that the private respondent nos. 5, 6 & 7 have been served and they have chosen not to appear and contest.

4. As per the facts projected, the private respondent nos. 5 to 7 had submitted an application on 10.01.2022 for correction of land records. However, instead of treating the same as an application, the same was treated as an appeal and decided by the Addl. District Commissioner, Barpeta under Regulation 147 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation Act, 1886 read with Regulation 151.

5. Before going to the merits of the impugned order, the learned counsel has submitted that such application could not have been treated as an appeal. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the aforesaid Regulation 147 which lays down the authority to whom appeal lies. He has submitted that the application for correction of land records is not an appeal and therefore there is an error of jurisdiction. On the merits of the case, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the findings arrived at are erroneous and perverse which require interference of this Court.

6. Per contra, Shri Das, the learned State Counsel has submitted at the outset that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that the Regulation itself provides for preferring an appeal against such an order. In this connection, he has drawn the attention of the Regulation 147 of theRegulations of 1886. By refuting the submissions that there is an error of jurisdiction, the learned State Counsel has submitted that mere wrong quoting of a provision of law would not make a material difference to an order if the same is otherwise valid. He submits that the order has taken into consideration all the relevant factors and from the materials available, a suspicion arises on the nature of the entry of the name of the father of the petitioner in the Chitha, which was accordingly rectified. He accordingly submits that the writ petition be dismissed.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqOT%2FziPvvpa10Ct4SMZisWRJ45%2BhLPdmca%2Foz5b6kMfZ&caseno=WP(C)/6892/2024&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010271312024&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.