Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010185912025 2026:GAU-AS:1944 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2749/2025 MD ABDULLAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, SON OF LATE KALIMULLAH, RESIDENT OF HATIKUSH VILLAGE, NAGARMAHAL MOUZA, P.O.-DHULIAPAR, DISTRICT SIVASAGAR, ASSAM, PIN - 785640 VERSUS MRS MIRA HAZARIKA AND 4 ORS DAUGHTER OF LATE ISLAM HAZARIKA 2:MRS ARA HAZARIKA DAUGHTER OF LATE ISLAM HAZARIKA 3:MRS BABLI HAZARIKA ALL ARE DAUGHTERS OF LATE ISLAM HAZARIKA ALL ARE RESIDENT OF RANGHAR CHARIALI P.O. - SIVASAGAR DISTRICT - SIVASAGAR ASSAM PIN - 785640 4:MD INAMUL HAZARIKA SON OF LATE ISLAM HAZARIKA 5:MD RAJIB HAZARIKA BOTH ARE SON OF LATE ISLAM HAZARIKA ALL ARE RESIDENT OF RANGHAR CHARIALI P.O. - SIVASAGAR DISTRICT - SIVASAGAR ASSAM PIN - 78564 Page No.# 2/8 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S NAZNEEN, MR Z ALAM Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A R SHOME, MR A J GHOSH Linked Case : RSA/184/2022 MD. ABDULLAH S/O KALIMULLAH RESIDENT OF HATIKUSH VILLAGE NAGARMAHAL MOUZA PO DHULIAPAR DIST SIVASAGAR ASSAM 785640 VERSUS MIRA HAZARIKA AND 4 ORS. D/O LATE ISLAM HAZARIKA RESIDENT OF RANGHAR CHARIALI PO AND DIST SIVASAGAR ASSAM 785640 2:MRS. ARA HAZARIKA D/O LATE ISLAM HAZARIKA RESIDENT OF RANGHAR CHARIALI PO AND DIST SIVASAGAR ASSAM 785640 3:MRS. BABLI HAZARIKA D/O LATE ISLAM HAZARIKA RESIDENT OF RANGHAR CHARIALI PO AND DIST SIVASAGAR ASSAM 785640 4:MD. INAMUL HAZARIKA Page No.# 3/8 S/O LATE ISLAM HAZARIKA RESIDENT OF RANGHAR CHARIALI PO AND DIST SIVASAGAR ASSAM 785640 5:MD. RAJIB HAZARIKA S/O LATE ISLAM HAZARIKA RESIDENT OF RANGHAR CHARIALI PO AND DIST SIVASAGAR ASSAM 785640 6:MISS LATIKA BEGUM D/O LATE SHEIKH MOTIUDDIN HAZARIKA RESIDENT OF NA-ALI CHRISTIAN GAON NAGARMAHAL MOUZA SIVASAGAR PO AND DIST SIVASAGAR ASSAM 785640 7:MISS SAFIKA BEGUM D/O LATE SHEIKH MOTIUDDIN HAZARIKA RESIDENT OF NA-ALI CHRISTIAN GAON NAGARMAHAL MOUZA SIVASAGAR PO AND DIST SIVASAGAR ASSAM 785640 8:MISS SADIKA BEGUM D/O LATE SHEIKH MOTIUDDIN HAZARIKA RESIDENT OF NA-ALI CHRISTIAN GAON NAGARMAHAL MOUZA SIVASAGAR PO AND DIST SIVASAGAR ASSAM 785640 9:MISS AQSHA BEGUM D/O LATE SHEIKH MOTIUDDIN HAZARIKA RESIDENT OF NA-ALI CHRISTIAN GAON NAGARMAHAL MOUZA SIVASAGAR Page No.# 4/8 PO AND DIST SIVASAGAR ASSAM 785640 10:MD. ZAKIR HAZARIKA S/O LATE SHEIKH ALI HAZARIKA RESIDENT OF RANGHAR CHARALI NAMGARMAHAL MOUZA PO AND DIST SIVASAGAR ASSAM 785640 11:MD. JAHIR HAZARIKA S/O LATE SHEIKH ALI HAZARIKA RESIDENT OF RANGHAR CHARALI NAMGARMAHAL MOUZA PO AND DIST SIVASAGAR ASSAM 785640 12:MD. NAJULLAH HAZARIKA S/O LATE KHADIM HAZARIKA RESIDENT OF NA ALI CHRISTIAN GAON PO AND DIST SIVASAGAR ASSAM 785640 13:MD. SOFIULLAH HAZARIKA S/O LATE KHADIM HAZARIKA RESIDENT OF NA ALI CHRISTIAN GAON PO AND DIST SIVASAGAR ASSAM 785640 14:MRS. ELU BEGUM D/O LATE DUL HAZARIKA RESIDENT OF NA ALI CHRISTIAN GAON PO AND DIST SIVASAGAR ASSAM 785640 15:MRS. MOSFIKA BEGUM D/O LATE ATAUR HAZARIKA RESIDENT OF NA ALI CHRISTIAN GAON PO AND DIST SIVASAGAR ASSAM 785640 16:MRS. ASFIKA BEGUM D/O LATE ATAUR HAZARIKA Page No.# 5/8 RESIDENT OF NA ALI CHRISTIAN GAON PO AND DIST SIVASAGAR ASSAM 785640 17:MD. LOTIFUR RAHMAN HAZARIKA S/O LATE NEKIB HAZARIKA RESIDENT OF NA ALI CHRISTIAN GAON PO AND DIST SIVASAGAR ASSAM 785640 18:MRS. KUSUM BEGUM W/O LATE AZIZ ULLAH RESIDENT OF JOYSAGAR TINI ALI NEAR MASJID PO JAYSAGAR DIST SIVASAGAR 785640 19:MD. SAHADULLAH S/O LATE AZIZ ULLAH RESIDENT OF JOYSAGAR TINI ALI NEAR MASJID PO JAYSAGAR DIST SIVASAGAR 785640 20:MD. HABIBULLAH @ MD. HABIULLAH S/O LATE KALIMULLAH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HATIKUSH VILLAGE NAGARMAHAL MOUZA PO DHULIAPAR DIST SIVASAGAR 785640 ------------ Advocate for : MR. U B SARMA Advocate for : MR. A R SHOME (R appearing for MIRA HAZARIKA AND 4 ORS. Page No.# 6/8 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 12.02.2026 Heard Mr. U. B. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. A. R. Shome, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants. 2. The present interlocutory application has been filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondents/defendants, their men, agents, servants or any person claiming through them from carrying out any construction whatsoever over the Schedule-B land. 3. The case of the applicant, as urged, is that although the learned Trial Court held that the respondents/defendants had not encroached upon the Schedule-B land measuring 2 Kathas 3.5 Lechas, a finding which stood affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court, the respondents have now commenced construction of RCC structures over the said land. According to the applicant, such construction would alter the nature and character of the land and cause serious prejudice to his interest. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents/defendants have been found to be in possession of the Schedule-B land by concurrent findings of the learned Trial Court and the learned First Appellate Court. It is contended that restraining the respondents from raising construction on land held to be in their possession would be wholly unjustified. Page No.# 7/8 It is further argued that, even if the applicant ultimately succeeds in the second appeal, any construction raised would be subject to the final decree and can always be removed in accordance with law. 5. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials available on record. 6. It is not in dispute that the learned Trial Court, upon appreciation of evidence, recorded a categorical finding that the respondents/defendants are in possession of the Schedule-B land and that there was no encroachment as alleged. The said finding has been affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court. Though the second appeal has been admitted and the aforesaid findings are under challenge, the same continue to hold the field as on date. 7. The original suit instituted by the applicant was for declaration of right, title and interest over the Schedule-A land and for recovery of khas possession of the Schedule-B land by evicting the respondents/defendants, along with demolition of the boundary wall, shop house and other structures raised thereon. The said prayers were dismissed by the learned Trial Court and such dismissal was upheld in appeal. 8. It also emerges from the record that constructions made by the respondents/defendants already exist over the Schedule-B land. In such circumstances, the contention that further construction of RCC structures would change the nature and character of the land does not appear to be well- founded. 9. The suit itself being one for recovery of possession and demolition of structures, no irreparable loss or injury can be said to be caused to the applicant at this stage. In the event the applicant ultimately succeeds in the second Page No.# 8/8 appeal, the law provides adequate remedy to restore possession and to deal with any construction raised during the pendency of the proceedings. 10. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant has failed to make out a case for the grant of a temporary injunction. The balance of convenience does not lie in favour of the applicant, nor is there any likelihood of irreparable injury being caused. 11. Accordingly, the interlocutory application is found to be devoid of merit and stands rejected. 12. No order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant