Gauhati HC Dismisses Writ Challenging Mutation Set-Aside, Holds Notice to Co-Owner Mandatory Under Section 52 of the 1886 Regulation

The Gauhati High Court refused to interfere with concurrent revenue authority orders that cancelled a land mutation granted without notice to a co-owner, holding the omission violated Section 52 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886.

The Gauhati High Court, on 13 July 2026, dismissed a writ petition filed by Pual Das challenging the cancellation of a land mutation that had been granted in his favour without serving notice on a co-owner of the same plot. Justice Devashis Baruah, sitting singly, found that the Circle Officer’s failure to notify the co-owner before mutating the land was a clear violation of Section 52 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. Two revenue authorities — the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) and the Assam Board of Revenue — had both reached the same conclusion, and the High Court saw no ground to disturb those concurrent findings under its certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Land Transaction and the Mutation That Followed

The dispute traces its origin to a Deed of Agreement dated 12 October 2002 between the petitioner, Pual Das, and Respondent No. 5 (Dhiraj Singh) along with the predecessor-in-interest of Respondent Nos. 6 and 7, for the sale of 10 Lechas of land. The land formed part of a larger plot of 2 Kathas 10 Lechas under Dag No. 1341 of Patta No. 194 of village Satgaon, Mouza Beltola, district Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati.

A registered Deed of Sale was eventually executed on 12 March 2008 bearing Deed No. 4104/2008. Pursuant to that deed, Pual Das applied for mutation before the Circle Officer, Dispur Revenue Circle. On 20 March 2014, the Circle Officer mutated a plot admeasuring 1.34 Are out of 6.21 Are under Dag No. 1429 of Patta No. 496 (new) of village Satgaon, Mouza Beltola in his favour.

The critical fact that emerged was that at the time the Circle Officer passed the mutation order, the name of Respondent No. 4, Arbinder Kaur Hingorani — the sister of the vendors — was already mutated over the same land along with her brothers. She was therefore a co-owner of record. No notice was issued to her before the mutation order of 20 March 2014 was passed.

The Two-Tier Revenue Challenge

Arbinder Kaur Hingorani, aggrieved by the mutation order, filed an appeal before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M), registered as RA(M) No. 3/2015-16. By order dated 8 May 2018, the Additional Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeal and set aside the mutation. The sole ground was that the mutation had been granted without notice to a co-owner of the land, in violation of Section 52 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886.

Pual Das then carried the matter further by filing an appeal before the Assam Board of Revenue, registered as Case No. 97RA(K)/2018. The Board of Revenue dismissed that appeal on 15 July 2025, affirming the Additional Deputy Commissioner’s order. Importantly, the Board granted the petitioner liberty to approach the Circle Officer, Dispur Revenue Circle, for a fresh mutation application. It was against this order of the Board of Revenue that the writ petition before the Gauhati High Court was filed.

What Section 52 of the 1886 Regulation Requires

Justice Baruah examined Section 52 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, which sets out the procedure to be followed on an application for registration of a name in revenue records. Sub-section (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner, upon receiving such an application, to publish a notice calling upon all persons who object to the registration or who dispute the nature or extent of the applicant’s interest to submit written objections and appear on a specified date, with a minimum notice period of one month.

Sub-section (2) further requires that where the application claims acquisition of land by transfer, a copy of the notice must be served on the alleged transferor or, if deceased, on the transferor’s heirs.

The court read Sub-section (1) as plainly mandating notice to all persons with an interest in the land, not merely to the direct vendors. Since Arbinder Kaur Hingorani’s name stood mutated over the same plot alongside her brothers at the time of the petitioner’s mutation application, she was a person with a direct interest in the registration proceedings. The statute required that she be notified, irrespective of the fact that only a portion of the land had been sold to the petitioner.

The Court’s Reasoning on Certiorari Jurisdiction

The central question before Justice Baruah was whether the High Court, in exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226, should interfere with the Board of Revenue’s order. The court answered that question in the negative.

The Additional Deputy Commissioner had, by applying Section 52 of the Regulation, held that the mutation without notice to a co-owner was in violation of the provision. The Assam Board of Revenue affirmed that finding. Justice Baruah held that the Additional Deputy Commissioner’s application of Section 52 “cannot be said to be wrong application of law.” Both revenue authorities had correctly identified the procedural infirmity.

The court also took note of the fact that the Board of Revenue, while dismissing Pual Das’s appeal, had kept open the avenue of a fresh mutation application before the Circle Officer. That liberty meant the petitioner was not left without a remedy; he retained the right to pursue mutation through the correct procedure.

Protection of the Petitioner’s Sale Deed

Before concluding, Justice Baruah made an explicit clarification to ensure that the dismissal of the writ petition did not prejudice the petitioner’s substantive rights flowing from his registered sale deed. The court recorded that neither the dismissal of the writ petition nor the dismissal of the appeal before the Assam Board of Revenue would prevent Pual Das from claiming mutation on the basis of Deed No. 4104/2008 dated 12 March 2008 in respect of 10 Lechas out of 2 Kathas 10 Lechas covered by Dag No. 1341 of K.P. Patta No. 194 (corresponding to Dag No. 1429 and Patta No. 496, new) of village Satgaon, Mouza Beltola, Kamrup (M), Guwahati.

The clarification separates the procedural defect — the failure to give notice under Section 52 — from the underlying title the petitioner derives from the registered deed. The sale deed remains intact; only the mutation process must be restarted with proper notice to all co-owners on record.

Outcome

The writ petition in WP(C)/5512/2025 was dismissed. The order of the Assam Board of Revenue dated 15 July 2025 in Case No. 97RA(K)/2018 stands, as does the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) dated 8 May 2018 in RA(M) No. 3/2015-16. Pual Das is at liberty to file a fresh application for mutation before the Circle Officer, Dispur Revenue Circle, in accordance with the procedure under Section 52 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886.