Dismissed

All Assam Koch Rajbongshi Sanmilani and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Gauhati HC7 Sept 2023WP(C)/1558/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the Koch Rajbongshi community against private respondents who allegedly interfered with their land construction. The court held the matter was a pure private civil dispute, making Article 226 inappropriate, and closed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands closed without entertaining the prayer.

All Assam Koch Rajbongshi Sanmilani and Anr. Vs the State… — Property and Title | Gauhati HC (2023)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010058332023

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/1558/2023

¶5

ALL ASSAM KOCH RAJBONGSHI SANMILANI AND ANR BONGAIGAON DISTRICT, COMMITTEE AT BONGAIGAON, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, SAMBHU CHARAN BARMAN, R/O- MAIN-GATE, BRPL, DHALIGAON, DIST.- CHIRANG, ASSAM

¶6

2: SAMBHU CHARAN BARMAN

¶7

WORKING PRESIDENT OF ALL ASSAM KOCH-RAJBONGSHI SANMILANI S/O- LATE SURENDRA CHANDRA BARMAN R/O- DHALIGAON BRPL-MAIN GATE P.O. AND P.S. DHALIGAON DIST.- CHIRANG BTAD ASSAM PIN- 78338

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS

¶10

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-6

¶11

2:THE COMMISSIONER LOWER ASSAM DIVISION PANBAZAR GHY-01

¶12

3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BONGAIGAON DISTRICT AT BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN- 783380

¶13

4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER BONGAIGAON REVENUE CIRCLE BONGAIGAON

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

ASSAM PIN- 783380 5:SHRI DEB KANTA RAY VILL- NAYAPARA PART-I P.O. CHAPRAKATA P.S. AND DIST.- BONGAIGAON PIN- 783380 6:SAMESHWAR SARANIA VILL- CHAPRAKATA (PAHARTOLI) P.O. CHAPRAKATA P.S. AND DIST.- BONGAIGAON PIN- 783380 7:SHRI MAHENDRA BARMAN VILL- CHAPRAKATA PART-II P.O. CHAPRAKATA P.S. AND DIST.- BONGAIGAON PIN- 783380 8:PANKAJ SARKAR VILL- NAYAPARA PART-II P.O. CHAPRAKATA P.S. AND DIST.- BONGAIGAON PIN- 783380

¶16

9:PRABHAT BARMAN VILL- POPRAGAON (KOREBARI) P.O. POPRAGAON P.S. AND DIST.- BONGAIGAON PIN- 78338

¶17

For the petitioner (s) : Mr. M. U. Mahmud, Advocate

¶18

For the respondent (s) : Mr. H. Bezbaruah, Advocate

¶19

Page No.# 3/4

¶20

BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH O R D E R

¶21

07.09.2023

¶22

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking a direction upon the private respondents to restrain them from disturbing in the ongoing construction of the Narnarayan Chilarai Kalakhetra as well as the pond within the Kalakhetra area.

¶23

It reveals from the perusal of the writ petition that an allotment of a plot of land was made for construction of Narnarayan Chilarai Kalakhetra at Chaprakata, Part-I measuring 12 bighas 2 kathas 15 lechas covered by Dag No.153 situated at village Chaprakata, Part-I under Bongaigaon Revenue Circle in the district of Bongaigaon. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner No.2 who is a Class-IA category contractor was issued work order for construction of the work. However, the private respondent Nos.5 to 9 as claimed by the petitioners illegally entered into construction site on 08.11.2022 and asked the petitioners to stop the construction of Kalakhetra work having no authority. Under such circumstances, the petitioners had lodged an FIR on 14.02.2023 requesting the police to investigate the matter and to take necessary action against the accused persons who are the private respondents. It is further mentioned in paragraph No.7 of the writ petition that there were repeated attempts between the petitioner and the private respondents to come to a mutual understating. However, there was no progress as a result of which the Koch Rajbongshi community has been deprived of the valuable past history and culture.

¶24

Page No.# 4/4

¶25

This Court further takes note of the FIR filed on 14.02.2023 enclosed as Annexure-10 to the writ petition wherein there are allegations being made against the private respondents.

¶26

I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the materials on record. The dispute in question is absolutely a private civil dispute between the petitioners as well as the respondent Nos.5 to 9. There is also no allegation made in the writ petition that the respondent police authority have not taken any steps pursuant to the FIR being lodged.

¶27

Taking into account the above, it is the opinion of this Court that as the dispute raised in the instant writ petition being purely a private civil dispute between the petitioners and the respondent Nos.5 to 9, the question of entertaining the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not called for. The petitioners are always at liberty to take recourse to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or initiate civil remedies as permissible under law, but the extra-ordinary public law remedy as has been sought to be done by the instant proceedings.

¶28

In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition for which the writ petition stands closed. However, as mentioned herein above, the non-entertaining of the instant writ petition shall not preclude the petitioners to other remedies permissible under law.

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

Comparing Assistant

All Assam Koch Rajbongshi Sanmilani and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

All Assam Koch Rajbongshi Sanmilani and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Rajbhor and 28 Ors. Vs State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Jatin Das Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Danduram Bora Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Vinayak Logistic and Anr. Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Uttam Saha and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Icco Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.