Abu Taher and 6 Ors v. The State of Assam and 7 Ors

ORDER Date : 12.08.2024

Heard Mr. M. K. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioners, who submits that the State respondents has settled the running of the Garukhuti Tiniali Daily Market with the respondent No. 8, as per the settlement order dated

30.06.2023, which was on the petitioners' patta land. Being aggrieved, the petitioners had challenged the same in WP(C) 4290/2023 and this Court had passed a stay order on 11.09.2023, directing the respondents not to operate the market through the respondent No. 8.

¶2The petitioners' counsel submits that WP(C) 4290/2023 is still pending before the Court. He submits that as the settlement period of the market has expired, the State respondents have allowed the respondent No. 8 to run the market by extending his lease period, pursuant to the notification dated

29.06.2024, issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Page No.# 4/5 P&RD Department and in this respect, they have issued a receipt dated

18.06.2024, showing that Rs.3,702/- had been taken from the respondent No. 8, as kist money for two months.

¶3The petitioners' counsel accordingly prays that the extension given to the respondent No. 8, for running the Garukhuti Tiniali Daily Market for two months, from 18.06.2024 till 17.08.2024, should be set aside.

¶4Ms. J. Bora, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the P&RD Department submit that as the petitioners have not made any representation, prior to approaching this Court, they should first approach the State respondents with their grievances by way of a representation.

¶5I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶6As can be seen from the order dated 11.09.2023 passed in WP(C) 4290/2023, the issue with regard to the settlement of the Garukhuti Tiniali Daily Market with the respondent No. 8, on the lands claimed by the petitioners is pending in this Court. There is also a stay order, directing that the market shall not be operated by the respondents, which is still in operation till day.

¶7In view of the fact that the stay order passed in WP(C) 4290/2023 is still continuing, the respondents cannot and should not give extension to the respondent No. 8 to operate the said market, pursuant to the notification dated

29.06.2024, if at all such extension had been given to the respondent No. 8.

¶8As the period of the alleged extension given to the respondent No. 8, in terms of the receipt dated 18.06.2024, is only till 17.08.2024, the present writ petition will be infructuous on 18.08.2024. Further, in the view of this Court, the Page No.# 5/5 issue raised by the petitioners in this case can be decided in WP(C) 4290/2023, inasmuch as, the alleged extension of the settlement order, if any, is only a consequential order. Besides, if there has been any violation of the order dated

11.09.2023 in WP(C) 4290/2023 or in pursuant to the receipt dated 18.06.2024, the same could amount to contempt of Court, for which an appropriate petition can be filed. The above being said, it cannot be said with certainty that there has been any violation of the order dated 11.09.2023 passed in WP(C) 4290/2023.

¶9In view of the reasons stated above, this Court is not inclined to keep the present writ petition pending any longer and the same is accordingly closed. However, the petitioners are given the liberty to file a representation before the State respondents, with regard to whether the respondent No. 8 has been given any extension of the settlement of the market, pursuant to the settlement order dated 30.06.2024 and in violation of the order dated 11.09.2024 passed in WP(C) 4290/2023. If any such representation is made, the same should be decided within a week and the result should be communicated to the petitioner.

¶10The writ petition is accordingly closed.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/5 GAHC010157862024 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWP(C)/4009/2024o ABUoTAHERoANDo6oORSo SONoOFoLATEoDULAoMIYA,oRESIDENToOFoVILLAGE-oPALAHJURI,oP.O.o GORUKHUTI,oP.S.oMORIGAON,oDISTRICT-oMORIGAON,oASSAM,oPIN-o782106 2:oSULTANoAHMED oSONoOFoLATEoDULAoMIYA oRESIDENToOFoVILLAGE-oPALAHJURI oP.O.oGORUKHUTI oP.S.oMORIGAON oDISTRICT-oMORIGAON oASSAMoPIN-o782106 3:oABDULoKASHEM oSONoOFoLATEoDULAoMIYA oRESIDENToOFoVILLAGE-oPALAHJURI oP.O.oGORUKHUTI oP.S.oMORIGAON oDISTRICT-oMORIGAON oASSAMoPIN-o782106 4:oABDULoALI oSONoOFoLATEoABDULoROUF oRESIDENToOFoVILLAGE-o2oNO.oBORCHALA oP.O.oGORUKHUTI oP.S.oLAHARIGHAT oDISTRICT-oMORIGAON oASSAMoPIN-o782106 5:oABDULoSATTAR oSONoOFoLATEoABDULoGOFURoPATARI oRESIDENToOFoVILLAGE-oPALAHJURI oP.O.oGORUKHUTIoP.S.oMORIGAON oDISTRICT-oMORIGAON oASSAMoPIN-o782106 PageoNo.#o2/5 6:oJOYNALoABEDIN oSONoOFoLATEoABEDoMULLA oRESIDENToOFoVILLAGE-oPALAHJURI oP.O.oGORUKHUTI oP.S.oMORIGAON oDISTRICT-oMORIGAON oASSAMoPIN-o782106 7:oRUHULoAMIN oSONoOFoLATEoABDULoGOFUR oRESIDENToOFoVILLAGE-oPALAHJURI oP.O.oGORUKHUTI oP.S.oMORIGAON oDISTRICT-oMORIGAON oASSAMoPIN-o78210o VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMoANDo7oORSo REPRESENTEDoBYoTHEoPRINCIPALoSECRETARYoTOoTHEoGOVERNMENToOF ASSAM,oPANCHAYAToANDoRURALoDEVELOPMENToDEPARTMENT,oDISPUR, GUWAHATI-o781006 2:THEoCOMMISSIONER oPANCHAYAToANDoRURALoDEVELOPMENT oASSAMoPANJABARIoGUWAHATI-o781037 3:THEoDEPUTYoCOMMISSIONER oMORIGAON oDISTRICT-oMORIGAON oASSAMoPIN-o782105 4:THEoCHIEFoEXECUTIVEoOFFICER oMORIGAONoZILLAoPARISHAD oDISTRICT-oMORIGAON oASSAMoPIN-o782105 5:THEoPRESIDENT oLAHARIGHAToANCHALIKoPANCHAYAT oDISTRICT-oMORIGAON oASSAMoPIN-o782105 6:THEoEXECUTIVEoOFFICER oLAHARIGHAToANCHALIKoPANCHAYAT oDISTRICT-oMORIGAON oASSAMoPIN-o782105 Page No.# 3/5 7:THE SECRETARY LAHARIGHAT ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT DISTRICT- MORIGAON ASSAM PIN- 782105 8:MD. MAMTAZ ALI SON OF LATE SOBOR ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NAGABANDHA P.O. AND P.S. LAHORIGHAT DISTRICT- MORIGAON ASSAM PIN- 78210 Advocate for the Petitioner : M K BORAH, MS. P. KASHYAP Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, P AND R.D. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA