Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5375 (GAU)

SRI BIMAN GOGOI v. SRI MRIGEN GOGOI AND 7 ORS

Review.Pet./283/2025 · 2026-05-03

Devashis Baruah

Review Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010266992025 2026:GAU-AS:6059 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./283/2025 SRI BIMAN GOGOI SON OF LATE LAKESWAR GOGOI, VILL- BHAKAT GAON, P.O. AND P.S.- MATHURAPUR, DIST- CHARAIDEO, PIN- 785689, ASSAM VERSUS SRI MRIGEN GOGOI AND 7 ORS S/O LATE PUNAKANTA GOGOI, R/O MATHURAPUR BHAKAT GAON, P.O. AND P.S. MATHURAPUR, DIST. CHARAIDEO, PIN 785689, ASSAM. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 3:THE COMMISSIONER PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT PANJABARI JURIPAR GUWAHATI-37 ASSAM. 4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CHARAIDEO P.O. AND P.S.- SONARI DIST- CAHARAIDEO PIN- 785690 ASSAM. 5:THE PRESIDENT Page No.# 2/3 CHARAIDEO ZILLA PARISHAD P.O. AND P.S.- SONARI DIST- CAHARAIDEO PIN- 785690 ASSAM. 6:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CHARAIDEO ZILLA PARISHAD P.O. AND P.S.- SONARI DISTCAHARAIDEO PIN- 785690 ASSAM. 7:LAKUWA ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT LAKUWA ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT P.O.- LAKUWA P.S.- MATHURAPUR DIST- CHARAIDEO PIN785689 ASSAM 8:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER LAKUWA ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT .O.- LAKUWA P.S.- MATHURAPUR DISTCHARAIDEO PIN- 785689 ASSAM Advocate for the petitioner(s): None appears Advocate for the respondent(s): Ms. R Gogoi for the respondent No.1 Mr. S Dutta, Standing Counsel, P & RD B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Page No.# 3/3 ORDER 04.05.2026 None appears on behalf of the review petitioner on call. 2. Ms. R Gogoi, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the opposite party No.1 and Mr. S Dutta, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the P & RD Department. 3. This is the second time when the matter has been listed and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the review petitioner is not present. 4. Considering the above, it appears that the review petitioner has lost interest in the instant proceedings, for which, the review petition stands dismissed for non-prosecution. JUDGE Comparing Assistant