Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 8245 (GAU)

NONONIE MD. BADAR UDDIN AND ANR v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS.

WP(C)/1208/2025 · 2025-03-04

Manish Choudhury

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010040162025 2025:GAU-AS:2336 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1208/2025 NONONIE MD. BADAR UDDIN AND ANR S/O- ABUL KASHEM NONONIE, R/O- VILL. AND P.O. DAGAON, P.S. JURIA, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 782124. 2: NONONIE MD. NASIR UDDIN S/O- ABUL KASHEM NONONIE R/O- VILL. AND P.O. DAGAON P.S. JURIA DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782124 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DM (LR) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GHY-06. 2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NAGAON DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782001. 3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER NAGAON ZILA PARISHAD DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782001. 4:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER JURIA DEVELOPMENT BLOCK DAGAON DIST. NAGAON Page No.# 2/4 ASSAM PIN- 782124. 5:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER JURIA ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT DAGAON DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782124. 6:SAHAJAHAN ALI S/O- BASIR UDDIN R/O- CHAMDHARA ARABARI P.S. JURIA DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782124. 7:BILAL UDDIN S/O- ISAHIL ALI R/O- CHAMDHARA ARABARI P.S. JURIA DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782124. 8:HARUN RASHID S/O- LATE ABDUL KADIR R/O- CHAMDHARA ARABARI P.S. JURIA DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782124. 9:BAHAR UDDIN S/O- LATE ABDUL WAHAB R/O- CHAMDHARA ARABARI P.S. JURIA DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782124 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M A ISLAM, MR J I MONDAL Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, REVENUE Page No.# 3/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 05.03.2025 Heard Mr. M.A. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioners; Ms. P.R. Mahanta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue & Disaster Management Department for the respondent no. 1; Ms. S. Boruah, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent no. 2; and Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development Department for the respondent nos. 3, 4 & 5. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court by the instant writ petition seeking to invoke the extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The petitioners have projected that they were allotted a plot of land measuring 35 feet X 20 feet in Plot no. 89 at Arabari sub-weekly Bazaar under Juria Anchalik Panchayat vide an Allotment Order dated 21.01.2019 issued under the hand of the respondent no. 5. Subsequently, the respondent no. 5 had also permitted the petitioners to make construction on temporary basis in the said plot of land on 25.06.2019 with the condition that as and when the Government would require the plot of land, the allotment would be cancelled. 4. The petitioners have approached this Court by the instant writ petition with projection that on 11.02.2025, the private persons, arrayed as party-respondent no. 6 to party- respondent no. 9 in this writ petition, came to the area and demolished the shop rooms constructed by the petitioners on the plot of land without any prior notice. In the process, they also took away of the goods and materials from the petitioners’ shops. The petitioners have claimed that for such acts the respondents are liable to pay loss, damages and compensation etc. to the extent of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the petitioners. 5. On perusal of the pleadings, it is found that there is no statement to the effect that in respect of the alleged act committed by the private individuals on 11.02.2025 the petitioners have lodged any First Information Report before the police. The petitioners are found Page No.# 4/4 conspicuously silent about making any representation before the jurisdictional Anchalik Panchayat including the respondent no. 5, who had allotted the space to the petitioners by an Order dated 21.01.2019. 6. It is, thus, evidently clear that instead of approaching the appropriate authorities, the petitioners have rushed directly to this High Court in order to invoke the extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction of this Court. 7. In such view of the matter, this Court deems it fit and proper not to entertain the writ petition. 8. The writ petition is accordingly, not entertained and is dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant