Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 13686 (GAU)

SMT. LAXMI MALAKAR and 4 ORS. v. STATE OF ASSAM and ORS.

WP(C)/1452/2012 · 2025-05-05

Kardak Ete

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010120612012 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1452/2012 SMT. LAXMI MALAKAR and 4 ORS. W/O LT. KRISHNA MALAKAR 2: SUBAL MALAKAR S/O LT. KRISHNA MALAKAR 3: SWAPAN MALAKAR S/O LT. KRISHNA MALAKAR ALL ARE THE R/O VILL. GOLAHATIA BASTI PO/PS. HOJAI DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN-782435 4: MAYA MALAKAR D/O LT. KRISHNA MALAKAR W/O MUKUL MALAKAR R/O SIB BARI PO/PS. HOJAI DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN-782435 5: KUMTAI MALAKA D/O LT. KRISHNA MALAKAR W/O BABUL DAS R/O VILL. UTTAR BIDYA NAGAR PO/PS. HOJAI DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN-78243 Page No.# 2/3 VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM and ORS. REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECY, LAND AND REVENUE DEPTT, GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GHY-6. 2:THE DY. COMMISSIONER NAGAON PO PS/DIST. NAGAON ASSAM 3:BIJOY MALAKAR S/O LT. NRIPENDRA MALAKAR 4:NAKUL MALAKAR S/O LT. NRIPENDRA MALAKAR BOTH ARE THE R/O VILL. PASCHIM NANDALALPUR PO. DIMRUPAR P.S. HOJAI DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN-782435 5:PRABATH CH. MALAKAR S/O LT. PADMOLOCHAN MALAKAR R/O VILL. DIMRUPAR PO. DIMRUPAR P.S. HOJAI DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN-78243 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.A H M R CHOUDHURY, MR.H R A CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : MRS.R MOMTAZ, FOR CAVEATOR,MR.ALHAJJ INAM UDDIN,MD.GIASH UDDIN,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE Page No.# 3/3 ORDER Date : 06-05-2025 None appears for the petitioner as well as for the respondents No.1, 3, 4 and 5. Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondent No.2 is present. This writ petition has been filed way back in the year 2012 and was dismissed for default on 29.01.2019. On the application of the petitioners, the same was restored by order dated 04.04.2025 by this Court. None appears for the petitioners even after restoration of the writ petition, which is pending since 2012. It appears that the petitioners are no longer interested to pursue the matter. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed for non-prosecution. JUDGE Comparing Assistant