Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010286102025 2026:GAU-AS:5026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1358/2026 MARAMI BEGUM W/O LATE SAHIDUR RAHMAN @ SAIDUL ISLAM, R/O VILL. AND P.O.- HELECHA, P.S.- HAJO, DIST.- KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN- 781382 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, REVENUE (RELIEF AND REHABILITATION BRANCH) AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER OF KAMRUP DISTRICT AT AMINGAON ASSAM P.O. AND P.S.- AMINGAON PIN-781031 4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER HAJO REVENUE CIRCLE P.O. AND P.S.- HAJO DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM PIN-781102 5:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE Page No.# 2/4 HAJO POLICE STATION P.O.- HAJO DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM PIN-781102 6:THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS (DISASTER MANAGEMENT DIVISION) TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA C WING 3RD FLOOR NDCC-II JAI SINGH ROAD NEW DELHI-11000 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R Deka, S I AKAND Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE, DY.S.G.I.,SC, FINANCE,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 06-04-2026 Heard Mr. S. I. Akand, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Also heard Ms. P. R. Mahanta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department, appearing for respondent No. 1; Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department, appearing for respondent No. 2; Ms. M. Barman, learned State counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5 and Mr. A. K. Dutta, learned CGC appearing for respondent No. 6. 3. The case of the petitioner is that her husband died when a large tree branch, broken by a heavy storm, fell upon him on 19.03.2024. In light of the aforementioned death, she filed an FIR on 17.05.2024 before the Officer-in- Charge of Hajo Police Station, reporting the unnatural death of her husband. Page No.# 3/4 Subsequently, the final report was submitted by the Officer-in-Charge, Hajo Police Station which confirmed that the death of the petitioner’s husband was due to the aforementioned incident. 4. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application for ex gratia relief due to her husband's death before the District Commissioner of Kamrup (Rural) at Amingaon, Assam. Since there was no response from the aforesaid authority, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition for appropriate relief. 5. During the consideration of the matter today, Ms. M. Barman, the learned State counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3, 4, and 5 has submitted a communication issued by the Additional District Commissioner-cum-CEO, DDMA, Kamrup, Amingaon, vide No. E150972/WPC No.1358/2026/DFA/545022, addressed to the Government Advocate, Assam, dated 26.03.2026. 6. The aforesaid communication, along with the documents annexed therein, is kept on record and marked as 'X'. 7. The communication reveals that the office of the Circle Officer, Hajo Revenue Circle, vide its letter No. HRC/DM/23/2017/172, dated 26.03.2026, submitted a detailed enquiry report. In the report, the Gaon Pradhan and Lot Mandal stated that no storm occurred on 19.03.2024 and that the death of the petitioner’s husband occurred while cutting a tree and was not caused by a storm or any natural calamity, as claimed in the writ petition. 8. Ms. Barman, the learned State counsel, appearing for respondents Nos. 2, 3, and 4 has submitted that, since the detailed report has revealed that the death of the petitioner’s husband was not caused by any natural calamity, the writ petition has been falsely filed by the petitioner in an attempt to claim ex Page No.# 4/4 gratia payment under the relevant government notifications dated 27.07.2011, 16.06.2015 and 26.06.2015, issued by the Government of Assam, Revenue (Relief and Rehabilitation Branch) and the Disaster Management Department, Dispur. 9. Taking into account the communication dated 26.03.2026, along with the detailed report from the Circle Officer, the Gaon Pradhan and the Lot Mandal, this Court is of the view that the instant petition does not merit any relief. 10. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant