Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010193822024 2026:GAU-AS:2335 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4797/2024 SHAJAHAN ALI AND 52 ORS S/O- NAGOR ALI 2: BADSHA SHEIKH SON OF LATE SHAHABUDDIN 3: KASEM ALI AGE 54 YEARS SON OF LATE MOKRAM ALI 4: SAMIR JALAL SON OF SAYED ALI 5: ROFIQUL ISLAM AGE 40 YEARS SON OF ABDUR RAHIM 6: SHAHJAHAN ALI AGE 43 YEARS SON OF JALAL UDDIN SHEIKH 7: SABUR UDDIN AGE 69 YEARS SON OF LATE DAROG ALI 8: KUTUB ALI AGE 24 YEARS SON OF MANIR UDDIN Page No.# 2/8 9: ABBAS ALI @ ABABACH ALI SON OF BIDU SHEIKH 10: MOINUDDIN MANDAL SON OF LATE AFAN MANDAL 11: SHAHINUR ISLAM AGE -36 YEARS SON OF JALAL SHEIKH 12: BASER ALI SON OF MOKTAL HOSEN 13: RUHUL AMIN SON OF JALAL UDDIN SHEIKH 14: SHAIZ UDDIN SON OF SOBUR UDDIN 15: NUR ISLAM SON OF KASHEM ALI 16: NUR UDDIN SK SON OF BAHAR UDDIN 17: HAJRAT ALI SON OF KALAM HOSEN 18: FOZOR ALI SON OF BILAT SHEIKH 19: FOYEZ UDDIN SON OF LATE KAJIMUDDIN 20: AYNAL HOQUE SON OF SEBAT ALI 21: TAHAR ALI Page No.# 3/8 SON OF LATE AMCHER ALI 22: KODOM ALI SON OF PASHAN ALI SK 23: ABED ALI SON OF SAKIM ALI 24: JABED ALI SON OF SAKIM ALI 25: ABDUL HAI MANDAL AGE-68 YRS SON OF LATE SOBAHAN ALI MONDAL 26: RAMJAN ALI AGE - 54 YEARS SON OF LATE SONAULLAH SHEIKH 27: SAMSUL HOQUE AGE - 47 YRS SON OF LATE ABDUR RAHMAN 28: BILAT ALI AGE -62 YEARS SON OF LATE NUR UDDIN 29: SORMAN ALI AGE - 55 YEARS SON OF LATE MOHAMMAD ALI 30: SAHADOT ALI AGE -38 YEARS SON OF LATE MOHAMMAD ALI 31: MAJIBAR RAHMAN AGE - 54 YRS SON OF LATE KASHEM ALI Page No.# 4/8 32: MOHIM ALI AGE - 61 YEARS SON OF LATE AMSER ALI SK 33: ANOWAR HUSSAIN AGE -40 YRS SON OF SEBAT ALI 34: MONIR UDDIN AHMED AGE - 45 YEARS SON OF LATE ABDUL WAHED 35: MULUK KHATUN AGE - 50 YEARS WIFE OF LATE MANNAN ALI 36: BANJU ALI SK AGE - 58 YEARS SON OF LATE MOKSED ALI 37: FAJAR ALI AGE 55 YEARS SON OF JALAL UDDIN 38: GOLAP UDDIN AGE - 40 YEARS SON OF JAYNAL ABDIN 39: JILLUR RAHMAN AGE - 58 YEARS SON OF LATE IDRIS ALI 40: JAHURUL ISLAM AGE - 47 YEARS SON OF JILLUR RAHMAN 41: MALEKA KHATUN Page No.# 5/8 AGE-54 YEARS DAUGHTER OF KARIM MOLLAH 42: CHAYED ALI AGE- 46 YEARS SON OF ABDUL KUDDUS 43: HALIMAN NESSA AGE- 54 YEARS WIFE OF SAYED ALI 44: ABDUL SALAM AGE - 64 YEARS SON OF SIDDIQUE ALI 45: NUR BAHAR SON OF LATE ABDUS SATTAR 46: SURUT JAMAL AGE - 35 YEARS SON OF RUHUL AMIN 47: TAJA SHEIKH AGE -51 YEARS SON OF LATE MONSER ALI 48: NOUSHAD ALI AGE - 35 YEARS SON OF LATE SEBAT ALI 49: AFSAR ALI SON OF LATE SAHAB UDDIN 50: NOSER ALI AGE - 50 YEARS SON OF LATE PASHAN ALI SHEIKH 51: ROFIQUL ISLAM AGE -40 YEARS Page No.# 6/8 SON OF ABDUR ROHIM 52: AFSAR ALI AGE - 60 YEARS SON OF LATE HASEN ALI 53: SUFIA KHATUN W/O- LATE MOFIJ UDDI VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, FOREST DEPARTMENT, DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 2:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND HEAD OF FOREST FORCE ASSAM ARANYA BHAWAN PANJABARI GUWAHATI KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN-781037 3:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER GOALPARA GEETANAGAR GOALPARA ASSAM PIN-783121 4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER GOALPARA ASSAM PIN-783121 5:THE CIRCLE OFFICER LAKHIPUR REVENUE CIRCLE P.O AND P.S- LAKHIPUR DIST-GOALPARA ASSAM PIN-783129 6:THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER LAKHIPUR RANGE OFFICE Page No.# 7/8 P.O AND P.S- LAKHIPUR DIST-GOALPARA ASSAM PIN-78312 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. F. N. U. Mollah, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. B. J. Talukdar, Sr. GA, Assam : Mr. I. Borthakur, SC, Forest BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 16.02.2026 Heard Mr. A. F. N. U. Mollah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and Mr. B. J. Talukdar, the learned Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State Respondents. I have also heard Mr. I. Borthakur, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Forest Department. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners has submitted that during the pendency of the instant writ petition, the Petitioners have already been evicted. He therefore submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw the instant writ petition and challenge the eviction without prejudice. 3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the lands in question were not forest lands but were revenue lands and the Forest Authorities therefore did not have the Page No.# 8/8 authority to evict the Petitioners. He submitted that these aspects would be challenged if liberty is given to the Petitioners to file a fresh writ petition. 4. Taking into account the above, the instant writ petition stands closed on withdrawal. 5. Liberty is given to the Petitioners to file a fresh writ petition challenging the eviction and seeking further relief(s) to which the Petitioners are entitled to as per law. 6. This Court further observes that the withdrawal of the instant writ petition shall not cause any prejudice to the Petitioners. JUDGE Comparing Assistant