Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 116 (GAU)

Rajish Bathari v. Parbola Bathari

2022-02-07

DEVASHIS BARUAH

body2022
ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. B. Baruah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and S. Borthakur, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. None appears for the respondent Nos. 6 and 7. 2. This petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed challenging the order dated 29.10.2019 passed by the Judge, Subordinate, NC Hills, Autonomous Council Court, Dima Hasao, Haflong, whereby an ex parte decision was made against the petitioners and thereby declaring that Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are the owner of 6 bigha, 1 katha, 14 lechas of land and 2 bigha of dry land covered by A.K. Patta No. 76 Dag Nos., 190/154, 183 and 184 situated at Surveyed Gidingpur village area under A.K. Patta No. 76 in the district of Dima Hasao (‘the said land’). 3. The facts of the case is that a notice dated 20.2.2019 was issued by the Assistant Revenue Officer, NC Mills stating, inter alia, that the said land shall be mutated as ejmali patta in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and if anybody has any objection to the said proposed mutation such objection was required to be file within 30 days from the date of issue of the said notice. 4. The petitioners herein along with one Payendra Bathari submitted objection to the Revenue Officer, NC Hills Autonomous Council stating, inter alia, thereby refuting the claims of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in their application for mutation. Subsequent thereto vide another communication dated 18.3.2019, the petitioners along with Payendra Bathari also filed an objection to the Assistant Revenue Officer, NC Hills stating about their objection to the proposed mutation to be done in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in respect to the said land. 5. The record reveals that the Revenue Authorities of the NC Hills did not take any steps for mutation in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and accordingly the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 submitted a representation to the Sub-Judge, Subordinate Courts, NC Hills, Autonomous Council, Dima Hasao, Haflong, for a direction to the Revenue Authority to issue necessary patta in terms with the notice dated 20.2.2019. 1 to 5 and accordingly the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 submitted a representation to the Sub-Judge, Subordinate Courts, NC Hills, Autonomous Council, Dima Hasao, Haflong, for a direction to the Revenue Authority to issue necessary patta in terms with the notice dated 20.2.2019. It appears from a perusal of the said representation enclosed as Annexure-D to the writ petition that nothing was stated except about the notice dated 20.2.2019 and that the Revenue Authority had not issued the patta for which a request was made for issuance of the land patta in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. 6. The record further reveals that on the basis of the said representation a land dispute case being LD Case No. 120/2019 was registered by the judge, Sub-Ordinate, NC Hills, Autonomous Council Courts, Haflong. It further reveals that the petitioners herein had filed a written statement in the said court. It is not known from the record available as to whether the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have filed any written statement or plaint or claim petition in the said court. Be that as it may, Judge, Subordinate, NC Hills, Autonomous Council Court, vide an order dated 29.10.2019 without discussing anything or providing any reasons passed an ex parte decision in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 thereby declaring the said land belonging to petitioner No. 4 in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and that the Petitioners had no right over the said land or create any kind of obstruction in the respondent Nos. 1 to 5’s claim over the said land. It is against the said order dated 29.10.2019 that the petitioners have approached this court under article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. At this stage, it may be relevant to take note of some of the provisions of the North Cachar Hills Autonomous District (Administration of Justice) Rules, 1955 (‘said Rules of 1955’). Chapter IV of the said Rules of 1955 stipulates the powers of the court. Chapter V is as regards the procedure to be followed by the said courts. Rules 47(1) and 49 being relevant for the instant case is quoted herein below:- “47. (1) In all civil cases the District Council Court and the Subordinate District Council Court shall adjudicate accordingly to law, justice, equity and good conscience consistent “with the circumstances of the case. 49. Rules 47(1) and 49 being relevant for the instant case is quoted herein below:- “47. (1) In all civil cases the District Council Court and the Subordinate District Council Court shall adjudicate accordingly to law, justice, equity and good conscience consistent “with the circumstances of the case. 49. In civil case, the procedure of the District Council Court or the Subordinate District Council Court shall be guided by the spirit, but not be bound by the letter of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in all matters not covered by recognized customary laws or usages of the District. 8. A reading of the above quoted Rules would show that in ail civil cases the District Council Court and. the Subordinate District Council Court shall adjudicate according to law, justice, equity and good conscience consistent with the circumstances of the case. It further stipulates that it shall be discretionary to examine witnesses on oath or affirmation in any form or to warn them that they are liable to punishment for perjury if they state that which they know to be false. 9. Rule 49 of the said Rules of 1955 which is in relation to civil cases, the procedure of the District Council Court or the Subordinate District Council Court shall be guided by the spirit, but not be bound by the letter of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in all maters not covered by recognized customary laws or usages of the District. In the backdrop of the said Rules, it would be relevant to take note of that although the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 would be strictly not applicable but the spirit of the said enactment has to be followed by the District Council Court or Subordinate District Council Court. It is also relevant to take note of that both the District Council Court as well as Subordinate District Council Court shall adjudicate the dispute according to law, justice, equity and good conscience as per the mandate of Rule 47 of the Rules of 1955. 10. In the backdrop of the above and the perusal of the materials on record, it reveals that the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have based their case entirely on the representation dated 13.5.2019. On the other hand, the petitioners had filed a written statement as would be apparent from a perusal of the impugned order itself. 10. In the backdrop of the above and the perusal of the materials on record, it reveals that the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have based their case entirely on the representation dated 13.5.2019. On the other hand, the petitioners had filed a written statement as would be apparent from a perusal of the impugned order itself. The impugned order further does not reflect any reasons for which the said decision was passed. The principles of law, justice, equity and good, conscience mandates that any authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial authority has to assign reasons to it; decision else it would be in violation to the principles of natural justice which is one of the tenets of article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 29.10.2019 apparently being devoid of any reasons is interfered with and set aside thereby remanding the matter before the Judge, Subordinate, NC Hills Autonomous Council Court, Dima Hasao, Haflong who shall freshly adjudicate the said dispute. In doing so, if the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 desires to file a written statement, they shall file such written statement within a time permitted by the said Court. Thereupon keeping in mind the mandate of rule 47 and rule 49 the said, court shall dispose off the said dispute according to law, justice, equity and good conscience which means by giving reasonable opportunity of hearing as well as by passing a reasoned order on the basis of the materials before the court. 12. It may also be required to take note of a submission made by this learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 that there is an appellate authority against which the order dated 19.10.2019 could be assailed. This court upon perusal of the order dated 29.10.2019 is of the opinion that not only the said court below did not exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon it by rules 47 and 49 but the manner in which the order has been passed also shocks the judicial conscience of the court for which this court exercises the superintending power under article 227 of the Constitution of India. 13. With the above observations, the instant petition stands allowed. No costs.