Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010105732023 2025:GAU-AS:14026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2793/2023 ATASH ALI S/O- LOKMAN ALI , PRESENTLY RESIDING AT VILLAGE SITALMARI BEEL, UNDER JURIA POLICE STATION, DIST- NAGAON, PIN-782124 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NAGAON P.O.-NAGAON DIST-NAGAON (ASSAM) 4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SONITPUR ASSAM 5:THE CIRCLE OFFICER JURIA REVENUE CIRCLE Page No.# 2/3 DIST-NAGAON ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A DEKA, MR S DEWRI,MR P SONOWAL,MR A DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE, GA, ASSAM BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 22.10.2025 This writ petition had been instituted in the year 2023, claiming compensation from the respondent authorities for demolition of the construction of the house/houses of the petitioner. The stand of the petitioner in the writ petition was that the petitioner had some land under his possession along with his family members, which land admittedly, was Government land. While reclaiming the land, the revenue authorities had caused destruction of the constructions made therein, and this writ petition for compensation was thus, preferred. 2. Notices were issued in this case on 22.05.2023 and it was made clear that in the event, the State has any policy for providing compensation to persons, who are evicted after they were allotted funds under the PMAY-G, the pendency of the writ petition shall not be a bar to examine the claim of the petitioner. The matter, was thereafter, listed on 16.12.2024 and 13.08.2025, on which dates, none appeared for the petitioner on call. Today also, when the matter was twice called, none appeared for the petitioner, although the State remained represented on both the occasions. In the last order dated 13.08.2025, it was observed that the Court would be constrained to pass appropriate orders in the event, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. 3. In view of today’s absence also, this writ petition is closed, on failure of the Page No.# 3/3 petitioner to prosecute his cause before this Court. 4. Writ petition, accordingly, is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant