IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C) NO. 2457-2458 OF 2009

JOYDEEP BHATTACHARJEE .......PETITIONER

Versus

BHUPENDRA KUMAR MAZUMDAR & ORS. .....RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

There  is  a  dispute  in  regard  to  certain  

property  in  Tinsukia,  between  the  petitioner  and  

respondents 13 and 14 on the one hand and respondents 1 to  

3 on the other.  Respondents 1 to 3 filed W.P.(C) No.2407  

of  1999  alleging  that  the  petitioner  with  the  help  of  

others forcibly demolished the boundary fence and tried to  

interfere with their possession and seeking a direction to  

respondents  not  to  indulge  in  the  illegal  activity  of  

evicting them from their own patta land in the name of  

demarcation of boundary and to remove the pillars put up in  

their land on 15.5.1999 and other consequential reliefs.  

The said writ petition filed by respondents 1 to 3 was  

dismissed  by  a  learned  single  Judge  by  order  dated  

20.5.1999 on the ground that the reliefs sought related to  

disputed questions relating to title and possession. The  

learned single Judge relegated respondents 1 to 3 to the  

remedy of a civil suit.

2. Feeling aggrieved, respondents 1 to 3 filed a  

writ  

.....2.

- 2 -

appeal.  The said writ appeal was allowed by a division  

bench of the Gauhati High Court in part by order dated  

23.12.2005. The said order noted that respondents 10 to 12  

in  the  writ  appeal  (petitioner  and  respondents  13,  14  

herein) had entered appearance through their counsel but  

the  said  counsel  had  withdrawn  their  appearance  and  

thereafter though notices were served on them, they did not  

arrange  for  fresh  representation  in  the  appeal.   The  

division bench also noted that petitioner and respondents  

13 and 14 had filed a suit for declaration of title in  

regard to the property in question but had subsequently  

withdrawn  the  same.  It  directed  the  authorities  

(respondents 4 to 7, 9 and 10) to restore the possession of  

the  land  in  dispute  (measuring  less  than  2  kathas)  to  

respondents 1 to 3 and directed petitioner and respondents  

13  and  14  to  remove  the  structures  and  tube  well.  It  

directed  that  any  measurement  or  demarcation  should  be  

undertaken  only  pursuant  to  order  passed  by  a  legally  

recognised  forum  in  a  proceedings  participated  by  both  

parties. It  directed the parties to approach the Civil  

Court or appropriate forum for deciding their dispute.  It  

made it clear that it was not expressing any opinion on the  

merits.

....3.

- 3 -

3. The petitioner filed a review petition which  

was  dismissed  on  30.9.2008.   Feeling   aggrieved,  the  

petitioner has filed these petitions seeking special leave  

to file appeals challenging the order dated 23.12.2005 and  

the review order dated 30.9.2008. Though there is a delay  

of 1023 days with reference to the order dated 23.12.2005,  

as the review petition was dismissed only on 30.9.2008 and  

the SLPs are in time with reference to the dated of the  

review order, we are of the view that the delay should be  

condoned.  Accordingly, we condone the delay.

4. The High Court directed restoration as writ  

petitioners were dispossessed during the pendency of the  

writ appeal, and such dispossession was by exceeding the  

ambit of the order dated 2.9.2003 in W.P.(C) No.6991/2003  

filed by the petitioner without disclosing the pendency of  

the writ appeal (WA No.167/1999). We find that the division  

bench of the High Court has not decided or expressed any  

opinion in regard to merits,  but has merely relegated the  

parties to approach the Civil Court in accordance with law,  

subject to restoration. There is, therefore, no need to  

interfere  with  the  said  order  except  to  provide  the

following safeguards:-

(a) Respondents 1 to 3 herein, to  whom possession has  

....4.

- 4 -

been restored on 25.1.2006 in  pursuance  of  order  dated  

23.12.2005  of  the  High  court,  shall  not  put  up  any  

structure nor alienate the same for a period of six months  

from today.  Either party may approach the Civil Court or  

other appropriate forum in accordance with law within the  

said period and seek appropriate interim relief;

(b) If and when either party approaches the Civil Court  

or  other  alternative  forum,  such  Court  or  forum  shall  

decide the subject matter of such suit or proceedings on  

the basis of the pleadings before it and the evidence let  

in  and  will  not  be  influenced  by  any  observations  that  

might have been made by either the learned single Judge or  

the  Division  Bench  in  their  orders  dated  20.5.1999  and  

23.12.2005.

(c) Having  regard  to  the  nature  of  disputes  and  the  

allegation  of  forcibly  dispossession  etc.,  the  Civil  

Court/appropriate forum shall endeavour to dispose of the  

suit  or  proceedings  expeditiously  preferably  within  one  

year.

  ......................J.             (  R.V.  

RAVEENDRAN )

New Delhi;    ......................J. October 25, 2010.              ( A.K. PATNAIK )