Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 9756 (GAU)

ALAKA DAS AND 2 ORS. v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS

WP(C)/1715/2025 · 2025-04-03

Manish Choudhury

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010062892025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1715/2025 ALAKA DAS AND 2 ORS. D/O- LATE KRISHNA DAS, R/O- VILL.- KULHATISATRISALI, P.O. KULHATI, P.S. HAJO, DIST. KAMRUP RURAL, ASSAM, PIN- 781104. 2: RUPAK DAS D/O- LATE KRISHNA DAS R/O- VILL.- KULHATI SATRISALI P.O. KULHATI P.S. HAJO DIST. KAMRUP RURAL ASSAM PIN- 781104. 3: HIRAKJYOTI DAS D/O- LATE KRISHNA DAS R/O- VILL.- KULHATI SATRISALI P.O. KULHATI P.S. HAJO DIST. KAMRUP RURAL ASSAM PIN- 781104 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY AND REVENUE REFORM AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006. 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KAMRUP RURAL AMINGAON GUWAHATI-781031. 3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER Page No.# 2/3 HAJO REVENUE CIRCLE VILL AND P.O. KULHATI DIST. KAMRUP RURAL PIN- 781104. 4:DILIP DAS R/O- VILL.- MAJKUCHI DIST. KAMRUP RURAL ASSAM PIN- 781104. 5:BIDYALATA DAS C/O- PANKAJ DAS R/O- VILL.- MAJKUCHI DIST. KAMRUP(R) ASSAM PIN- 781104. 6:HEMANTA BARUAH S/O- LATE PRASANNA DAS R/O- VILL.- KULHATI SATRISALI P.O. KULHATI P.S. HAJO DIST. KAMRUP RURAL ASSAM PIN- 781104. 7:HIRON BARUAH S/O- LATE PRASANNA DAS R/O- VILL.- KULHATI SATRISALI P.O. KULHATI P.S. HAJO DIST. KAMRUP RURAL ASSAM PIN- 781104 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I H SAIKIA, MR. B BORAH,MR. K KALITA,MR K KASHYAB Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, REVENUE Page No.# 3/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 04-04-2025 Heard Mr. I.H. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners; Ms. G. Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for the respondent no. 1; and Mr. N. Goswami, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 2 & 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at some length, Mr. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners want to withdraw the writ petition, in order to seek relief before the appropriate forum/court as permissible under the law. In view of the above submission made by Mr. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners, the writ petition is allowed to be withdrawn, with the liberty, as prayed for. JUDGE Comparing Assistant