AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. R Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. SP Roy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5 and 6 as well as Mr. G Pegu, learned State counsel.
The core issued involved in this writ petition is as to whether the land measuring 8 bighas 3 kathas 10 lechas of Dag No.401 of KP Patta No.60 of village Bihdia, Mouza Chaygaon Pantan, 4 bighas 1 katha 4 lechas covered by Dag No.707 of KP Patta No.348 of village Makali Mouza Chaygaon Pantan and 4 bighas 4 kathas 10 lechas covered by Dag No.560 of KP Patta No.126 of village Naopara, Mouza Chaygaon Pantan belongs to the writ petitioners or it belongs to the respondent temple authorities.
From the Jamabandi, it is noted that the land originally belongs to Chaturbhuj Thakur @ Chaturbhuj Bora, but the question as to whether said Chaturbhuj Thakur was a living person being the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners or Chaturbhuj Thakur was a deity of the concerned temple is not clear. Without adjudicating the aforesaid question no further legal right of the respective parties can be determined.
On one hand, the petitioners claim that Chaturbhuj Thakur @ Chaturbhuj Bora was the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, who was the original owner of the land and on the other hand, the respondent temple authorities claim that Chaturbhuj Thakur is the governing deity of the temple.
It is noticed that in the order dated 25.04.2002 of the Circle Officer in Mutation Case No.16/2000-2001, a finding had been arrived at by stating that after considering all aspects, the Circle Officer is satisfied that the disputed land is actually a land of religious institution.
Accordingly mutation was ordered in favour of the respondent temple authorities. But the said finding of the Circle Officer does not answer the core question as to who is the original owner of the land, whether it was Chaturbhuj Thakur @ Chaturbhuj Bora being the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners or it was Chaturbhuj Thakur being a deity of the temple.
In such view of the matter, as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties that interest of justice would be served if a direction is issued to the concerned Circle Officer to conduct a hearing by giving opportunity to both the petitioners and the temple authorities and also by allowing both the parties to produce all relevant materials that the petitioners as well as the temple authorities may desire to produce to arrive at a definite conclusion as to whether the land, in question, originally belongs to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners or it belongs to the temple authorities.
Any order to be passed by the Circle Officer upon undertaking the aforesaid exercise shall prevail over all orders of the Circle Officer and the orders of the learned Board of Revenue in RA No.46/2001-2002, 47/2001-2002 and 48/2001-2002 as well as in Case No.32RA(K)/2007, Case No.33RA(K)/2007 and Case No.34RA6(K)/2007.
It is further provided that in the event, the Circle Officer is of the view that the dispute involves a disputed question of fact, which cannot be determined on the basis of revenue records, the Circle Officer may require the parties to approach the Civil Court for appropriate adjudication by following the provisions under Section 56(C) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886.
In terms of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of.