Dismissed

MD Achaduz Zaman v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Gauhati HC8 Feb 2024WP(C)/586/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A landowner sought direction to authorities to decide his earth cutting permission application, but the land was subject to a pending title suit filed by another claimant. The High Court declined to direct any decision before the trial court settled ownership and dismissed the writ petition, granting liberty to seek clarification from the trial court.

What the court decided

AI extract

MD Achaduz Zaman Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors. — Mining and Natural Resources | Gauhati HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010017972024

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/586/2024

¶5

MD ACHADUZ ZAMAN

¶6

SON OF LATE ABDUL SUKKUR OF VILL- UJANDHI, P.O. KARNAMADHU, P.S. KARIMGANJ, DIST.- KARIMGANJ, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT, GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6

¶9

2:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND HEAD OF FOREST FORCE ASSAM

¶10

3:THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST SILCHAR CACHAR DIVISION DIST.- CACHAR ASSAM PIN NO.- 788001

¶11

4:THE CHAIRMAN STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY ASSAM BAMUNIMAIDAN GUWAHATI

¶12

5:DISTRICT FOREST OFFICER DIST.- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788701

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

6:THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER KARIMGANJ DIST.- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN NO. 788001 7:THE DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF GEOLOGY AND MINING ASSAM BHU BIGYAN BHAWAN DAKINGAON KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19 DIST.- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM

¶15

8:ABDUL ADUD CHOUDHRY SON OF LATE NAJIB ALI CHOUDHURY RESIDENT OF VILL- BISKUT P.O. AYLABARI P.S. AND DIST.- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN NO.- 78871

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I A TALUKDAR

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FOREST

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶19

ORDER

¶20

09.02.2024

¶21

Heard Mr. I.A. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner had applied for earth cutting permission in respect of land measuring an area of 6 Kedar situated at Village-Biscuit, Mouza-Biscuit, covered by Dag No.654(new), Patta No.182 (new) under Sadar Revenue Circle, DistrictKarimganj. However, the respondent No.5 has not forwarded the petitioner’s application to the respondent No. 4 and as such, no decision has been taken by the respondents with regard to the petitioner’s application for earth cutting. He

¶22

Page No.# 3/4

¶23

accordingly submits that a direction should be issued to the State respondents to take a decision on the petitioner’s application for cutting earth on his land.

¶24

The petitioner’s counsel submits that the land on which he is asking for permission to cut the earth, has also been claimed by the respondent No.8 vide Title Suit No. 36/2022, which is pending before the Court of learned Munsiff No. 3, Karimganj. He submits that the petitioner has also submitted his written statement in the Title Suit stating that the description, boundary and area of the alleged suit land are false, incorrect and not identifiable in the locality. The petitioner’s counsel further submits that the petitioner’s land is covered by Dag No. 654(new) under Patta No. 182(new), though the land of the respondent No. 8 is covered by Dag No.581 under Patta No. 182. He submits that while earth cutting is being undertaken in Dag No. 581, the petitioner’s application for earth cutting in respect of Dag No. 654 has not been decided till date.

¶25

Mr. D. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department submits that as there is a dispute with regard to the property in which the petitioner has applied for earth cutting, it may not be proper for this Court to pass a direction, prior to the learned Trial Court taking a decision as to who is the owner of the said property.

¶26

On considering the fact that the application for earth cutting has been made on a plot of land, which is in dispute in Title Suit No.36/2022, this Court is not inclined to pass any order, inasmuch as, the title to the land has not been settled by the learned trial Court.

¶27

In view of the above facts, liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the learned trial Court, to clarify as to whether the portion of land on which he

¶28

Page No.# 4/4

¶29

has asked for earth cutting permission is in dispute with the respondent No.8. If it is held that there is no dispute with regard to the portion of land for which the petitioner has applied for earth cutting, the petitioner may approach the authorities or this Court again, if so advised.

¶30

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

MD Achaduz Zaman v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

MD Achaduz Zaman v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nasir Ali Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

The Assam Tea Employees Provident Fund Organization and 3 Ors. Vs M/S. Bogidhola Tea and Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2 Ors.

Prabhat Fertilizer and Chemical Works Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Nurun Nessa @ Narun Nessa Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

M/S Air Transport Corporation Assam Private Limited Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Johirul Islam Vs the Union of India and 7 Ors.