WP(C) 2422/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P K MUSAHARY Heard Mr. S K Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.P.Chakraborty, l earned standing counsel ,Social Welfare Department. There is a plot of land measuring 4 Bighas 2 Kathas 11 Lechas covered by Dag No.195, Patta No.78 of village-Rajapukhuri in the district of Kamrup, Assam jointly owned and possessed by four brothers. On a part of the said plot of la nd covering 6/7 Lechas, a mini Anganwadi Center was constructed. The present two petitioners raised objection to such construction as the same was done without their consent and the consent was given by other two brothers only. The presen t petitioners informed the authorities concerned about their objection and reque sted them to remove the said construction. Respondent No.3, the Child Development Project Officer, Rampur has filed his affidavit-in-opposition, stating amongst others, that said mini Anganwadi Center was constructed over the land on the basis of the alleged gift deed exe cuted by two brothers in favour of the Social Welfare Department. No rejoinder to the aforesaid counter affidavit has been filed but Mr. Medhi, learned coun sel submits that the aforesaid gift deed is not a valid deed in the eye of law i nasmuch as the other joint pattadars have not executed the same along with other two brothers. Besides this, the said deed was not registered and it has no evid entiary value and no action can be taken on the basis of such invalid document. Regarding enquiry report (Annexure R/3 to the affidavit in opposition) it is s ubmitted by Mr. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioners that the so called en quiry was conducted without associating the present petitioners and they were in darkness about the same and such enquiry report is not acceptable for them. But it appears from the enquiry report itself that handing and taking over of possession is yet to take place. From this it can be understood that the Anganadi Centre is not under the occupa tion of the department. In the writ petition the petitioners have clearly stated that they filed a representation on 15.9.2010 before the Commissioner, Social Welfare Departmen t followed by legal notice dated 27.3.2011 but no reply has been given. The afor esaid facts of filing representation and serving legal notice have not been den ied to by the respondents. Since the land is owned by four brothers and the pres ent petitioners, being the brothers have not been taken into confidence or at le ast their consent to transfer a part of the land to the Social Welfare Departmen t was not taken and the present petitioner admittedly raised serious objection to the transfer of the land in question to the Social Welfare Department and the aforesaid representation and legal notice were not responded to, I consider tha t the respondent- authorities, particularly respondent No.1 shall cause a detail ed enquiry through a District Officer, who shall submit a report after spot ver ification in presence of all the four brothers. After verification, the said Di strict Officer shall submit a report to the respondent- Commissioner within a pe riod of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. After receipt of the report the respondent-Commissioner shall take appropriate d ecision and intimate the same to the petitioner. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.