Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010212532021 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6909/2021 SHARIF UDDIN AHMED AND 7 ORS S/O- LATE ISHA HOQUE R/O- VILLAGE- AHOTA, PO- JOYSAGAR, PS- MUKALMUA, DIST-NALBARI 2: MD MATIUR RAHMAN S/O- LATE NASUMUDDIN R/O- VILLAGE- AHOTA PO- JOYSAGAR PS- MUKALMUA DIST-NALBARI 3: HANUFA BIBI W/O- LATE JOHUR UDDIN R/O- VILLAGE- AHOTA PO- JOYSAGAR PS- MUKALMUA DIST-NALBARI 4: SAHED ALI S/O- LATE OSEN ALI R/O- VILLAGE- AHOTA PO- JOYSAGAR PS- MUKALMUA DIST-NALBARI 5: MIRAN ALI S/O- LATE JINNAT ALI R/O- VILLAGE- AHOTA PO- JOYSAGAR PS- MUKALMUA DIST-NALBARI 6: POLAN KHAN S/O- MOKDOM KHAN Page No.# 2/4 R/O- VILLAGE- AHOTA PO- JOYSAGAR PS- MUKALMUA DIST-NALBARI 7: HAIDAR KHAN S/O- LATE SOMBOL KHAN R/O- VILLAGE- AHOTA PO- JOYSAGAR PS- MUKALMUA DIST-NALBARI 8: BACHEK ALI S/O- LATE GAJI SHEIKH R/O- VILLAGE- AHOTA PO- JOYSAGAR PS- MUKALMUA DIST-NALBAR VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GHY-6 2:THE DIRECTOR LAND RECORDS AND SURVEYS ETC. RUPNAGAR GHY-32 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NALBARI-781335 4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER BARKHETRI REVENUE CIRCLE PO- BARKHETRI DIST- NALBARI ASSAM-781303 5:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DISPUR GHY- 6. 6:THE CHIEF ENGINEER P.W.D. (ROADS) CHANDMARI GUWAHATI Page No.# 3/4 ASSAM PIN- 781003. 7:GAUTAM CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE AND PROJECT MANAGER SRI RAHUL JAIN S/O KAMAL SINGH BENGANI RESIDENT OF MAPLE BLOCK PARK PANORAMA FLAT NO. 504 5TH FLOOR OPPOSITE MLA HOSTEL LASTGATE DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP(M) ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. R CHOUDHURY, MR N RAHMAN Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MS G DUGAR (R-7),MR H K SARMA (R-7),MS T J SAHEWALLA (R-7),MR M SAHEWALLA (R-7),MR G N SAHEWALLA (R-7),MR R DHAR (SC, PWD-ROADS),SC, REVENUE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 21.11.2025 1. None appears for the petitioners on call. 2. It is seen that on the last date of listing also there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners and this Court in the order dated 17.11.2025 had recorded that in the event of non-representation of the petitioners on the next date and the averments and submissions made by the respondents, noticed in the said order, the Court may presume that the petitioners are not interested to pursue the writ petition. 3. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioners today. 4. Accordingly, the pressed writ petition stands dismissed for non Page No.# 4/4 prosecution. JUDGE Comparing Assistant