Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010137402017 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4887/2017 ABDUL HATEM ALI AHMED and 2 ORS. S/O MD. ABDUL KHALEK R/O VILL- DHANBANDHA P.O. SONKUCHI DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM 2: MUSTT. KHURSHEDA BEGUM W/O MD. HAKIM UDDIN R/O VILL- DHANBANDHA P.O. SONKUCHI DIST. BARPETA ASSAM 3: MD. SHAJAHAN ALI S/O LT. FALU MIA R/O VILL- DHANBANDHA P.O. SONKUCHI DIST. BARPETA ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM and 3 ORS. REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI -6. 2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BARPETA ASSAM 3:THE SETTLEMENT OFFICER BARPETA ASSAM 4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER BARPETA REVENUE CIRCLE P.O. and P.S. BARPETA DIST. BARPETA Page No.# 2/3 ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.M U MAHMUD, MRS R BORAH,MD.S ISLAM,MR.A DAS,MR.M ALI,MR.S HOQUE,MS.C KALITA Advocate for the Respondent : , GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 04.08.2025 Heard Shri M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri J. Handique, learned State Counsel as well as Ms. G. Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department. 2. Considering the facts and circumstances and also the fact that this writ petition is pending since the year 2017, the same is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. 3. As per the facts projected, initially a WP(C)/2142/2007 was filed by 93 nos. of petitioners, including the present 3 nos. of petitioners with a prayer for allotment of land. In the said proceeding, a stand was taken by the authorities that 19 nos. of petitioners, including the present petitioners, did not have possessions or dwelling houses in the Sarkari Dag No.1 of Dhanbandha VGR. Accordingly, the said petition was disposed of vide an order dated 16.07.2009, directing the respondents to examine the genuineness of the claims of the petitioners. The petitioners accordingly had filed representations for such allotments, which had not been acted upon. 4. Shri Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that land has been allotted to similarly situated persons and the petitioners have been left Page No.# 3/3 out. 5. On the other hand, both Shri Handique and Ms. Hazarika, the learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that the cause of action itself has been rendered otiose by introduction of the New Land Policy. They have also emphasized on the Basundhara scheme under which a landless person can apply for allotment of land. 6. In view of the aforesaid development and change of scenario, this Court is of the opinion that no effective relief can be granted to the petitioners in the present writ petition and the same is accordingly closed. 7. The petitioners are however given liberty to apply under the existing New Land Policy including the Basundhara scheme for allotment of land and if that is done, the same will be considered by the respondent authorities strictly in accordance with law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant