Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010062682024 2026:GAU-AS:2453 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1732/2024 ARVIND KUMAR SINGH S/O- LT. RAM BRIKSHA SINGH, R/O- BIRKUCHI, P.S.- NOONMATI, P.O.- NARENGI, GUWAHATI- 26, DISTRICT- KAMRUP(METRO), ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER SECRETARY PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006. 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KAMRUP(METRO) PANBAZAR GUWAHATI- 781001 ASSAM. 3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER CHANDRAPUR REVENUE CIRCLE CHANDRAPUR JATIMARA GUWAHATI-50 DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM. 4:THE SECRETARY NO. 1 Page No.# 2/5 PANIKHAITI GAON PANCHAYAT PANIKHAITI P.O.- BONDA GUWAHATI- 26 DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM. 5:SURENDRA SAH S/O- ANUKALAL SAH @ ANGUTHA SHAH R/O- BONDA BIRKUCHI NARENGI- CHANDRAPUR ROAD P.S.- NOONMATI P.O.- NARENGI GUWAHATI-26 DISTRICT- KAMRUP(METRO) ASSAM. 6:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Kataki, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Dutta, SC, P&RD Mr. J. Handique, Advocate Mr. V. N. Upadhyay, Advocate Page No.# 3/5 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH O R D E R 18.02.2026 Heard Mr. P. Kakati, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. S. Dutta, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 & 4; Mr. J. Handique, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.2, 3 & 6 and Mr. V. N. Upadhyay, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No.5. 2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondent No.4 to make necessary enquiry in regard to illegal construction made by the respondent No.5 on the basis of the permission granted by the respondent No.4 vide sanction order dated 28.10.2020 and thereafter demolished any illegal construction, if any. 3. This Court has duly perused the pleadings and from perusal of the pleadings, it appears that it is a pure private dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.5. The other officials have been just roped in so that the instant writ petition could be filed. 4. Mr. S. Dutta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Page No.# 4/5 respondent Nos.1 & 4 submits that the Gaon Panchayat or the Anchalik Panchayat or the Zilla Parishad do not have any authority to grant permissions for construction of the building. 5. This Court also enquired with Mr. P. Kakati, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the petitioner as to under what law the Gaon Panchayat can demolish the building which the respondent No.5 had constructed. No such provision of law could be shown. It is the opinion of this Court that the dispute is purely a civil dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.5 in as much as the petitioner is aggrieved because of some alleged construction made by the respondent No.5. 6. This Court also takes note of another relevant fact which is that the petitioner had filed a suit before the Court of the Civil Judge No.2, Kamrup (Metro) at Guwahati, which was registered and numbered as Title Suit No.195/2021. In the said suit, an injunction application was filed seeking temporary injunction, restraining the respondent No.5 from raising/constructing the permanent RCC building over the suit premises as well as also to demolish the unauthorized construction. It is seen that the said suit was referred to the National Lok Adalat held on 09.09.2023, and the petitioner, who was the plaintiff therein, had withdrawn the suit without any liberty. This resulted in an award being passed by the National Lok Adalat held on 09.09.2023 wherein it Page No.# 5/5 is mentioned that the plaintiff wanted to withdraw the case against the defendants without any condition. 7. Under such circumstances, the instant proceedings is not only misconceived as it is a private dispute sought to be settled by way of a public law remedy, but it also appears that the petitioner, having filed the suit and withdrawn without any liberty, cannot agitate the said aspect by filing the writ petition. 8. Taking into account the above, this Court does not find any merit in the present proceedings for which the writ petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant