Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010153252017 2025:GAU-AS:9471 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7795/2017 ANDREW YULE and CO. LTD. and ANR. A CENTRAL PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING, UNDER THE MINISTRY OF HEAVY INDUSTRIES AND PUBLIC ENTERPRISES OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT "YULE HOUSE", 8 DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD SARANI, KOLKATA-700001, WEST BENGAL, WITH ITS GROUP OFFICE OF ASSAM AT KHOWANG TEA ESTATE, P.O. and P.S. KHOWANG, DIST. DIBRUGARH. 2: THE SENIOR MANAGER MURPHULANI TEA ESTATE P.O. GOLAGHAT P.S. BOGIJAN DIST. GOLAGHAT ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM and 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECRETARY, TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT and RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., DISPUR. 2:THE GOLAGHAT ZILLA PARISHAD GOLAGHAT REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT P.O. and P.S. AND DISTRICT- GOLAGHAT ASSAM. 3:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER MORANGI DEVELOPMENT BLOCK DOIGRUNG GOLAGHAT ASSAM. Page No.# 2/3 4:MURPHULANI GAON PANCHAYAT P.O. GOLAGHAT P.S. BOGIJAN DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-CUM-DISTRICT COLLECTOR GOLAGHAT DIST. GOLAGHAT ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.P J SAIKIA , MR.R S MISHRA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, P AND R.D. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 23.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. R.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The present writ petition is filed assailing implementation of IAY scheme within the Tea Estate of the petitioners, inasmuch as, it is the claim of the petitioners that in terms of the clause 3.2.1 and 3.2.3 of the guideline for implementation of IAY scheme, such houses are to be constructed either on public land to be identified by the Collector and in the event, such public land is not available, the same should, either be purchased or acquired. 3. The learned standing counsel, P&RD submits that the IAY schemes are no more being implemented, rather houses are constructed for the beneficiaries under PMAY-G. It is also submitted Page No.# 3/3 by the learned standing counsel that there was subsequent SOP’s which permits construction of houses for Tea Garden workers and therefore, this writ petition has become infructuous. 4. The learned counsel for the State Respondents has produced a notification issued under the name of Governor of Assam prescribing Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for implementing Pradhan Mantri Awaas Yojana – Gramin (PMAY-G). 5. From the aforesaid notification it is seen that houses can be constructed in the Tea Garden lands, however, ownership of the land will be as per existing laws and the rules amended from time to time. 6. From that, what is seen is that the beneficiaries under the PMAY-G can be Tea Garden workers etc, however, land will rest for the Tea Gardens. 7. In view of the aforesaid, this court is of the opinion that nothing survives to be adjudicated in this writ petition and accordingly, the same stands closed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant