JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. A. T. Sarkar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the P&RD Department. I have also heard Mr. S. R. Boruah, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.3 and Mr. R. Islam, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 10. 2. The Petitioners herein who are the settlement holder of two ghats namely Char Airanjongla, Airanjongla Pt-II to Airanjongla New Ghat and Porapurirchar BSF Camp Check Post to Airanjongla New Ghat under the Bhasanichar Gaon Panchayat are aggrieved by the settlement made in favour of the Respondent No.10 by the Respondent No.8 on two grounds. First, that the Birshing Gaon Panchayat did not have the authority and jurisdiction to grant the settlement in respect to the Ghat from Aminerchar to LNT Road, Aminerchar and the second ground so taken is the said settlement so made in favour of the Respondent No.10 is without following any tender process which is the mandate of Section 106 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act of 1994’). 3. This Court had passed an order dated 10.12.2025 enquiring upon the Respondents more particularly the P&RD Department as to whether the Birshing Gaon Panchayat has the authority to establish a new parghat and whether the same has been done by following the mandate of the Act of 1994. Today, Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent P&RD Department has placed before this Court an instruction dated 13.02.2026 which is kept on record and marked with the letter “X”. 4. In the said instructions, it has been mentioned that the Petitioners herein have been agitating their grievances before two forums. One, before the learned Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dhubri in Title Suit No.235/2025 wherein an injunction application was also filed being Misc. (J) Case No.340/2025 and the same being pending, the Petitioners could not have filed the present writ petition seeking the similar reliefs. 5. The second aspect which is mentioned in the said instructions is that the Birshing Gaon Panchayat has the Authority inasmuch the parghat from Aminerchar to LNT Road, Aminerchar under Birshing Gaon Panchayat is within the Birshing Gaon Panchayat jurisdictional area. 5. The second aspect which is mentioned in the said instructions is that the Birshing Gaon Panchayat has the Authority inasmuch the parghat from Aminerchar to LNT Road, Aminerchar under Birshing Gaon Panchayat is within the Birshing Gaon Panchayat jurisdictional area. It is also mentioned that on account of the construction of the Dhubri Fulbari Bridge, one channel of Dhubri side and another channel in Fulbari side have been left open because both the channels are main stream of River Brahmaputra which are used for crossing Ships, Launches and Engine Boats etc. It was also mentioned that people of South Salmara District as well as the nearby area of Meghalaya State used the LNT Road for their easy communication between Dhubri to Fulbari by motorcycle and they have to cross the main channel of River Brahmaputra by Engine Boat and the channel of Dhubri side due to change of course of the River Brahmaputra presently passing through the village Aminerchar which has fallen under the jurisdiction of Birshing Gaon Panchayat. It is under such circumstances, this parghat i.e. from Aminerchar to LNT Road, Aminerchar was set up on an experimental basis. 6. Further to that, it is also mentioned that the Petitioners herein have no right to say anything pertaining to the affairs of the Birshing Gaon Panchat as well as the Birshing Jarua Anchalic Panchayat and the area of the newly created parghat i.e. Aminerchar to LNT Road has not fallen within the territorial jurisdiction of the petitioners’ leased area. 7. This Court had also heard Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the P&RD Department on the question as to how the Respondent No.10 was granted the settlement without following the mandate of Section 106 of the Act of 1994. The learned Standing counsel had submitted that this was done on experimental basis and as such, no tender was floated. 8. This Court has given anxious consideration to the respective submissions as well also perused the materials on record. 9. At paragraph No.7 of the writ petition, the Petitioners have duly stated that the Petitioners had filed a suit as well as an injunction application which were pending before the learned Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division at Dhubri. Mr. This Court has given anxious consideration to the respective submissions as well also perused the materials on record. 9. At paragraph No.7 of the writ petition, the Petitioners have duly stated that the Petitioners had filed a suit as well as an injunction application which were pending before the learned Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division at Dhubri. Mr. A. T. Sarkar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners further submitted that in the meantime, on 17.02.2026, the said suit has been withdrawn. 10. This Court has also taken note of that the Birshing Gaon Panchayat has the jurisdiction in respect to the area falling within the Aminerchar to LNT Road, Aminerchar and the Petitioners herein who are the lessee in respect to two ghats as already stated hereinabove under the Bhasanichar Gaon Panchayat, cannot question the jurisdiction of the Birshing Gaon Panchayat unless there is a dispute amongst the two Gaon Panchayats. Nothing has been brought to that effect before this Court. Under such circumstances, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the Birshing Gaon Panchyat has the jurisdiction to set up a parghat from Aminerchar to LNT Road at Aminerchar. This opinion however is given on the basis of the materials before this Court and without taking into account the stand of Dhubri Zila Parishad under whose jurisdiction both these Gaon Panchayats are situated. 11. Be that as it may, it is pertinent to take note of that though on experimental basis, the parghat from Aminerchar to LNT Road at Aminerchar is being run, but the settlement of the said ghat has to be in terms with Section 106 (1) of the Act of 1994. 12. This Court has duly taken note of Annexure-9 to the writ petition whereby the Respondent No.10 has been granted the settlement of the parghat for the period from 30.11.2025 to 30.06.2026 without following the mandate of Section 106 (1) of the Act of 1994. Under such circumstances, it is the opinion of this Court that the settlement dated 27.11.2025 by which the Respondent No.8 has granted the settlement to the Respondent No.10, the parghat from Aminerchar to LNT Road at Aminerchar cannot be sustained in law. 13. Under such circumstances, it is the opinion of this Court that the settlement dated 27.11.2025 by which the Respondent No.8 has granted the settlement to the Respondent No.10, the parghat from Aminerchar to LNT Road at Aminerchar cannot be sustained in law. 13. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i) The impugned order dated 27.11.2025 by which the Respondent No.8 has granted settlement to the Respondent No.10, the parghat namely from Aminerchar to LNT Road at Aminerchar is bad in law and accordingly, is set aside and quashed. (ii) The Respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 9 shall be at liberty to take steps for settlement of the said parghat namely from Aminerchar to LNT Road at Aminerchar by following the mandate of Section 106 (1) of the Act of 1994. (iii) Till such time, the Respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 9 shall run the said parghat namely from Aminerchar to LNT Road at Aminerchar departmentally.