Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010113582026 2026:GAU-AS:8272 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3009/2026 HUMAYUN KABIR AND 14 ORS SON OF LATE NURUL ISLAM. 2: NAZRUL ISLAM SON OF LATE MAJIBAR RAHMAN. 3: KUTUBUDDIN SON OF NAJIMUDDIN 4: SADDAM HUSSAIN SON OF LATE AMBAS ALI 5: IMRAN HUSSAIN SON OF SATTAR ALI 6: AMINUR RAHMAN SON OF LATE AJAD ALI. 7: DELOWARR HUSSAIN SON OF LATE JOYNAL ABDIN 8: ABDUL MANNAN SON OF LATE ABDUL KARIM 9: HAFIZUR RAHMAN SON OF LATE JOYNAL ABDIN 10: HATEM ALI SON OF LATE SAHID ALI. 11: AMINUL HOQUE SON OF ABDUL KASIM 12: SAFIQUR RAHMAN Page No.# 2/4 SON OF LATE NURUL ISLAM 13: SAIFUL ISLAM SON OF MUTAZZAL HOQUE 14: ABUL KALAM SON OF MOTAZZAL HOQUE 15: SAFIUR RAHMAN SON OF LATE JOYNAL ABDIN ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE - RAJAPUKHURI BAGISA P.O. CHAMNAKHAT P.S. DHULA IN THE DISTRICT OF DARRANG ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAI DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI - 781006, ASSAM. 2:THE DARRANG ZILLA PARISHAD MANGALDOI REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT DISTRICT- DARRANG ASSAM. 3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER DARRANG ZILLA PARISHAD MANGALDOI DISTRICT- DARRANG ASSAM 4:THE ABHOY PUKHURI GAON PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT P.O. DHULA IN THE DISTRICT OF DARRANG ASSAM. 5:THE SECRETARY ABHOY PUKHURI GAON PANCHAYAT P.O. DHULA IN THE DARRANG ASSA Page No.# 3/4 Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. B Rahman Advocate for the respondent(s): Ms. N Borah Standing Counsel, P & RD Department B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 10.06.2026 Heard Mr. B Rahman, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Also heard Ms. N Borah, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 3 and 5. 2. The case of the petitioners herein is that the petitioners are the land owners wherein the respondent authorities have been operating the Ambachowk Open Market and Ambachowk Cattle Market. It is the further case of the petitioners that the respondent authorities cannot call for a tender for settlement in respect to a market which falls within the private lands of the petitioners, inasmuch as, it would be violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution. 3. This Court during the course of the hearing enquired as to whether any tender in that regard has been issued for the financial year 2026-27. Mr. B Rahman, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that till date no such tender has been issued, but the petitioners are apprehensive that such tender may be issued. 4. It is the opinion of this Court that the petitioners’ cause of action for challenging such action on the part of the respondents of settling markets over the private lands of the petitioners would arise when such tenders are issued Page No.# 4/4 and as such, it is the further opinion of this Court that the writ petition is premature. 5. Be that as it may, this Court, however, finds it very pertinent to observe that the issue which has been raised in the instant writ petition is settled by the law laid down by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rupam Talukdar Vs. the State of Assam and Ors. reported in 2009 (4) GLT 126, wherein the learned Division Bench of this Court in categorical terms had mentioned that the settlement of markets cannot be made over private lands as it would be in violation to Article 300-A of the Constitution. 6. It is, however, very pertinent also to observe that pursuant to declaring Rule 47 of the Assam Panchayat (Financial) Rules, 2002 to be ultra vires the Constitution, Rule 47 of the said Rules have been reinserted by carrying out necessary amendments. 7. This Court also takes note of that the petitioners have sought for approval from the Gaon Panchayat as well as the Government for setting up of the private market. This Court takes note of that the said application was only filed on 27.05.2026 and, as such, this Court at this stage is not inclined to pass any directions. 8. It is observed that if after a reasonable lapse of time, the respondent authorities do not consider such application submitted by the petitioners, they would be at liberty to approach this Court. 9. Writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant