Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010158222025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4181/2025 BANIJ ALI S/O- LATE MAHAR ALI, VILL.- HAPACHAR PATHAR, P.S. KALGACHIA, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE COMMISSIONER PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT ASSAM PANJABARI JURIPAR GUWAHATI-37. 3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER BARPETA ZILLA PARISHAD BARPETA ASSAM 4:THE PRESIDENT KALGACHIA ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT KALGACHIA DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781329. 5:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER KALGACHIA ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT KALGACHIA Page No.# 2/6 DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781329. 6:THE PRESIDENT 50 NO. TARAKANDI GAON PANCHAYAT TARAKANDI P.O. TARAKANDI P.S. KALGACHIA DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781321. 7:THE SECRETARY 50 NO. TARAKANDI GAON PANCHAYAT TARAKANDI P.O. TARAKANDI P.S. KALGACHIA DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781321. 8:SOLEMAN ALI S/O- LATE SHAHEB ALI GAONBURA VILL. AND P.O. TARAKANDI P.S. KALGACHIA DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781321 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M KHAN, R. ALI Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P AND R.D., MS A DAS(R-8),MR. H ALI (R-8) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 29.01.2026 The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been instituted with the following relief: “It is therefore, prayed that your Lordship's would be pleased to Page No.# 3/6 admit the petition, issue a rule, call for the records and calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ of mandamus should not be issued directing of commanding the respondent No. 6 & 7 to issue afresh NIT for settlement of Tarakandi Anchalik Bazar situated at 50 No. Tarakandi Gaon Panchayat under Kalgachia Anchalik Panchayat in the district of Barpeta, Assam for the period of 2025-2026 and after cause or causes shown if any and upon hearing of the parties Your Lordship would be pleased to make the rule absolute for the interest of justice and / or any pass any other further appropriate order or orders as your Lordship's may deem fit and proper as to grant adequate relief. -And- Further it is also prayed, that till disposal of the petition Your Lordship would be pleased not to allow the respondent no. 8 to collect the tax/toll etc from Tarakandi Anchalik Bazar situated within 50 No. Tarakandi Gaon Panchayat under Kalgachia Anchalik Panchayat Dist: Barpeta, Assam for the interest of justice.” 2. As per the facts projected, the concerned Tarakandi Anchalik Bazar was a part of an NIT published on 01.06.2024 in which the petitioner was an aspirant. However, the settlement process was not finalised. Thereafter, on 26.05.2025, another NIT was published in which the aforesaid market was excluded. It is the case of the petitioner that such exclusion is arbitrary and unreasonable and also in violation of Section 107 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994. 3. I have heard Shri A.M. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Ms. N. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, P&RD and Shri H. Ali, learned Page No.# 4/6 counsel for the respondent no. 8. 4. Shri Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is an aspirant for settlement of the market in question which was rightfully included in the NIT dated 01.06.2024. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the tender schedule issued by the Kalgachia Anchalik Panchayat in which the aforesaid market finds place against serial no. 11. However, in the impugned Tender Notice published on 26.05.2025, the market in question has been excluded. He has submitted that from the affidavit filed by the Department as well as by the private respondent no. 8, it transpires that the market is on private land. However, that by itself would not overcome the requirement of Section 107 of the Act of 1994 which requires prior approval of the concerned Panchayat Authorities and the Government. He has submitted that no such approval has been brought on record. 5. Per contra, Ms. Bora, the learned Standing Counsel by drawing the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 11.11.2025 has submitted that the claim of the petitioner is fallacious and baseless. She submits that the aforesaid market has been running over private patta land since long and by mistake, it was included in the NIT dated 01.06.2024 which was subsequently rectified in the subsequent NIT dated 26.05.2025. It is submitted that reliance by the petitioner on Section 107 to support his claim is misconceived inasmuch as the concerned 50 No. Tarakandi Gaon Panchayat had issued necessary Trade License to the concerned person. She has in fact placed on record a copy of the Trade License issued by the aforesaid Gaon Panchayat. 6. Supporting the stand of the Department, Shri Ali, learned counsel for the respondent no. 8 has submitted that the market has been running for the last 18 years on a private patta land. He has also submitted that the respondent no. Page No.# 5/6 8 has been wrongly arrayed as a party respondent inasmuch as it is the father and the uncle of the respondent no. 8 who are the patta holders of the land in question which is the private land and they have not been made party respondent and on this count alone, the petition is defective and is liable to be dismissed. He has also submitted that though vide notice dated 01.06.2024, the market was put to advertisement, no settlement was made which was rectified by the subsequent NIT dated 26.05.2025. 7. The rival contentions have been duly considered. 8. The primary basis of instituting the present claim is that the petitioner is an aspirant for settlement of the market in question which was advertised on 01.06.2024. It is however not in dispute that the aforesaid process which was initiated vide NIT dated 01.06.2024 was not carried forward and rather in the subsequent NIT dated 26.05.2025, the aforesaid market was excluded from the purview of any settlement. The justification given by the Department as well as by the private respondent is that the market is running on private patta land. The aforesaid projection is a projection on facts which is not disputed. 9. The scope of approaching a Writ Court is primarily for enforcement of a legal right. In the instant case, the petitioner by claiming to be an aspirant to participate in the proposed settlement of a market cannot have an enforceable right to demand the process of settlement of such market. The justification given by the respondent – Department as well as by the respondent no. 8 appears to be relevant. 10. At this stage, this Court may also deal with the submission with regard to Section 107 of the Act of 1994. The said provision is primarily to restrict any unauthorised markets within the jurisdiction of the Gaon Panchayat. The same Page No.# 6/6 however cannot be a restriction to run a market over private patta land which in this case is not in dispute. This Court has also taken note of the Trade License issued by the concerned Gaon Panchayat in favour of the incumbents who are the patta holders. As rightly pointed by Shri Ali, the learned counsel, the patta holders have not even been made parties in this proceeding and on that count also, the writ petition may be held to be defective. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that no case for interference is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 12. No order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant