Soilo Bala Barman and Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

S/O LATE HARIPODA KARMAKA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAJAPARA PART II PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DIST KOKRAJHAR BTR ASSAM 783349 6: AKHIL BARMAN S/O LATE UPEN BARMAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAJAPARA PART II PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DIST KOKRAJHAR BTR ASSAM 783349 7: ANJALI KARMAKAR D/O LATE HARIPODA KARMAKAR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAJAPARA PART II PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DIST KOKRAJHAR BTR ASSAM 783349

¶18

8: BISWAJIT KARMAKAR S/O LATE HARIPODA KARMAKAR

¶19

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAJAPARA PART II PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DIST KOKRAJHAR BTR ASSAM 783349

¶20

9: BOLORAM BARMAN S/O LATE MAHAN BARMAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAJAPARA PART II PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DIST KOKRAJHAR BTR ASSAM 783349 10: PRADIP BARMAN S/O LATE CHIKON BARMAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAJAPARA PART II PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DIST KOKRAJHAR BTR ASSAM 78334

¶21

Page No.# 3/34

¶22

VERSUS

¶23

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS

¶24

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006

¶25

2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY BTR BTR SECRETARIAT KOKRAJHAR DIST KOKRAJHAR BTR ASSAM

¶26

3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER

¶27

DIST KOKRAJHAR BTR ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER

¶28

4:THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (CIVIL) PARBATJORA KOKRAJHAR BTR ASSAM

¶29

5:THE CIRCLE OFFICER

¶30

BAGORIBARI REVENUE CIRCLE PARBATJORA KOKRAJHAR DIST KOKRAJHAR BTR ASSAM

¶31

6:THE SRI MAHAMAYA DHAM COMMITEE

¶32

MAHAMAYA BOGORIBARI PARBATJORA KOKRAJHAR DIST KOKRAJHAR BTR ASSA

¶33

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K SAIKIA, MR. J I BORBHUIYA,MR. L MOHAN,MR A

¶34

Page No.# 4/34

¶35

HOSSAIN,MR D.S. BHATTACHARYA

¶36

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, BTC

¶37

Linked Case : WP(C)/953/2025

¶38

SOILO BALA BARMAN AND ORS S/O NURINKARJI AGE ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDENT OF RAJAPARA PT-II PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM PHONE NO. 8133963794 GENDER FEMALE 2: JITEN BARMAN S/O KAMALA KANTA BARMAN AGE ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDENT OF RAJAPARA PT-II PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM

¶39

3: HARENDRA MOHON ADHIKARY S/O DHIRENDRAMOHONADHIKARY AGE ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDENT OF RAJAPARA PT-II PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM

¶40

4: MANINDRA BARMAN S/O SHAMAR NATH BARMAN AGE ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - KHAMAR PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349

¶41

5: DIPAK ROY

¶42

Page No.# 5/34

¶43

S/O SANIRAM ROY AGE ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL -RAJAPARA PT-II PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349

¶44

6: KANAK CH. RAY S/O MADAN CH. RAY AGE ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL -RAJAPARA PT-II PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349

¶45

7: ALIPRABHA BARMAN S/O DHRUBA CH. BARMAN AGE ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL -RAJAPARA PT-II PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349

¶46

8: BISHNU GOPAL RAY S/O SUSHIL KR. RAY AGE ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - KHAMAR PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM

¶47

9: RANJIT BARMAN S/O MOHENDRA BARMAN AGE ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - ANGARKATA PT-I PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349

¶48

10: DULAL BARMAN S/O RANJAN BARMAN AGE ABOUT 34 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL -RAJAPARA PT-II PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349

¶49

Page No.# 6/34

¶50

11: BIJOY BARMAN S/O POBENESWAR BARMAN AGE ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - KHAMAR PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349

¶51

12: PUJA BARMAN S/O GOBINDA BARMAN AGE ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - KHAMAR PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM 13: PUSHPO BARMAN C/O LATE ASHOK KUMAR BARMAN AGE ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - KHAMAR PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM 14: KHARGESWAR BARMAN S/O UMANANDA BARMAN AGE ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - KHAMAR PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM 15: PABANESWAR BARMAN S/O SHATISH BARMAN AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - KHAMAR PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM

¶52

16: LAKHAPATI BARMAN S/O LATE MAHESWAR BARMAN AGE ABOUT 23 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - KHAMAR

¶53

Page No.# 7/34

¶54

PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM

¶55

17: BHOLA BARMAN S/O LATE MAHESWAR BARMAN AGE ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - KHAMAR PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM 18: DULAL BARMAN S/O JOYRAM BARMAN AGE ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL -RAJAPARA PT-II PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349

¶56

19: MANO BARMAN S/O SUBAL BARMAN AGE ABOUT 28 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL-RAJAPARA PT-II PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM 20: RAGHU BARMAN S/O RAMESH BARMAN AGE ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - RAJAPARA PT-II PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM 21: RAKESH BARMAN S/O BARUN BARMAN AGE ABOUT 26 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - KHAMAR PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM

¶57

Page No.# 8/34

¶58

22: SHAULOBALA BARMAN C/O LATE UTTAM BARMAN AGE ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - KHAMAR PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM

¶59

23: KHIROD BARMAN S/O SUBAL CH. BARMAN AGE ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL -RAJAPARA PT-II PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM

¶60

24: TULSI BARMAN S/O NAGEN BARMAN AGE ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - KHAMAR PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM

¶61

25: RABIN BARMAN S/O KHOGEN BARMAN AGE ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - RAJAPARA PT-II PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM

¶62

26: CHANCHALA BARMAN S/O ATUL BARMAN AGE ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - RAJAPARA PT-II PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM

¶63

27: SUSUMA BARMAN S/O SUSHIL BARMAN

¶64

Page No.# 9/34

¶65

AGE ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - RAJAPARA PT-II PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM 28: MONOJ BARMAN S/O PRAFULLA BARMAN AGE ABOUT 22 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - KHAMAR PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM 29: DHIRENDRANATH ROY S/O JOYKANTA ROY AGE ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - RAJAPARA PT-II PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM 30: PADUMIHALDER H/O PURANHALDER AGE ABOUT 30 YEARS RESIDENT OF BILASIPARA DIST - DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783348 ASSAM 31: SAKENDRA BRAHMA S/O PURENDRA BRAHMA AGE ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL -ALUPARA PT-I PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM

¶66

32: KATIRAM BARMAN S/O HALONG BARMAN AGE ABOUT 25 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - KHAMAR

¶67

Page No.# 10/34

¶68

PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM

¶69

33: MILI BARMAN C/O SHIBESH BARMAN AGE ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - KHAMAR PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM

¶70

34: SUKUMAR BARMAN S/O BIREN CH. BARMAN AGE ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - RAJAPARA PT-II PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM 35: LABHESHWARI DEVI S/O BUDHESHWARNATH AGE ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - MAHAMAYA PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM

¶71

36: PURNABALA BARMAN S/O DHANESWAR BARMAN AGE ABOUT 74 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - RAJAPARA PT-II PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM

¶72

37: RADHIKA BARMAN S/O MINTU BARMAN AGE ABOUT 29 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - RAJAPARA PT-II PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349

¶73

Page No.# 11/34

¶74

ASSAM

¶75

38: JEGCHORA BARMAN S/O DEBA PRASAD BARMAN AGE ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - RAJAPARA PT-II PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM 39: EKADASHI RAY S/O KALU RAY AGE ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - RAJAPARA PT-II PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM 40: BIJURAM BARMAN S/O PUNIA BARMAN AGE ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - RAJAPARA PT-II PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM 41: MONO BALA BARMAN S/O HEM CH. BARMAN AGE ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - RAJAPARA PT-II PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM 42: MUKUL ADHIKARY S/O NANDALALADHIKARY AGE ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - KHAMAR PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM

¶76

43: DELO BARMAN

¶77

Page No.# 12/34

¶78

S/O MITHARAM BARMAN AGE ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - MAHAMAYA PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM 44: RANJAN ADHIKARY S/O LATE - SUDHIRADHIKARY AGE ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL -RAJAPARA PT-I PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM 45: PUTULI BARMAN C/O DHARANI BARMAN AGE ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL -RAJAPARA PT-I PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM 46: GANESH ROY S/O BADAL CH. ROY AGE ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - KHAMAR PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM 47: LAKHI BARMAN S/O NIRANJAN BARMAN AGE ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - KHAMAR PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM

¶79

48: MINTU BARMAN S/O CHANDANBARMANI AGE ABOUT 34 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL- RAJAPARA PT-II

¶80

Page No.# 13/34

¶81

PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM

¶82

49: KANIKABALA RAY C/O LATE NIPEN BARMAN AGE ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - KHAMAR PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM

¶83

50: NIRIMATI ADHIKARY C/O PRODYUT KR. ADHIKARY AGE ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - KHAMAR PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM

¶84

51: SAMO BARMAN C/O SUBAL BARMAN AGE ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - RAJAPARA PT-II PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM

¶85

52: GITA BARMAN C/O RAJKUMAR BARMAN AGE ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - RAJAPARA PT-II PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM

¶86

53: BANBHASI BARMAN S/O PUTUL BARMAN AGE ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - RAJAPARA PT-II PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349

¶87

Page No.# 14/34

¶88

ASSAM

¶89

54: MITHUN ROY S/O JATIN ROY AGE ABOUT 28 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL -MAHAMAYA PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM 55: HIRESH BARMAN S/O SAJAL BARMAN AGE ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL- RAJAPARA PT-II PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM 56: MINATI BARMAN S/O SAJAL BARMAN AGE ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL-RAJAPARA PT-II PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM 57: FULMATI BARMAN C/O LATE BHAJO BARMAN AGE ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - KHAMAR PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM 58: ANIMA BARMAN S/O SOMBARI BARMAN AGE ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL -RAJAPARA PT-II PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM

¶90

59: MARAMI BARMAN

¶91

Page No.# 15/34

¶92

S/O SAILEN BARMAN AGE ABOUT 18 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL-RAJAPARA PT-II PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM 60: DIPALI BARMAN S/O NAGEN BARMAN AGE ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - KHAMAR PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM 61: MOHAN BALA RAY S/O BALO BARMAN AGE ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - KHAMAR PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM 62: KRISHNA BARMAN S/O TARANIKANTA BARMAN AGE ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL-RAJAPARA PT-II PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM 63: KHIREN BARMAN S/O NITYANANDA BARMAN AGE ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - KHAMAR PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM

¶93

64: RAKHI BARMAN S/O KRISHNA BARMAN AGE ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL- RAJAPARA PT-II

¶94

Page No.# 16/34

¶95

PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM

¶96

65: PROTIBHA BARMAN C/O ABHISHEK BARMAN AGE ABOUT 25 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - KHAMAR PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM

¶97

66: SHONA BALA BARMAN S/O JAYRAM BARMAN AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL-RAJAPARA PT-II PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM

¶98

67: INDRAJIT ADHIKARY S/O BIPINADHIKARY AGE ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL-RAJAPARA PT-II PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM

¶99

68: CHATU BARMAN S/O MAHENDRA BARMAN AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL-RAJAPARA PT-II PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM

¶100

69: BALEN RAY S/O JATIN RAY AGE ABOUT 29 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL -MAHAMAYA PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349

¶101

Page No.# 17/34

¶102

ASSAM

¶103

70: NABIN BARMAN S/O LATE BHAJO BARMAN AGE ABOUT 28 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - KHAMAR PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM 71: LALMAHON RAY S/O LATE BADAL CH. RAY AGE ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - KHAMAR PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM 72: DULALIBALA RAY S/O RUPARAM BARMAN AGE ABOUT 33 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - ALUPARA PT-I PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM 73: JONALI BARMAN S/O SATKUMAR BARMAN AGE ABOUT 23 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - KHAMAR PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM 74: DULALIBALA ROY S/O MADAN BARMAN AGE ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - RAJAPARA PT-II PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM 75: MINATI ADHIKARY

¶104

Page No.# 18/34

¶105

C/O DINESH RAY AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL-RAJAPARA PT-II PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM 76: NILIMABALA RAY S/O MADAN KR. RAY AGE ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL-RAJAPARA PT-II PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM 77: GOKUL ROY S/O NAGEN ROY AGE ABOUT 30 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL -ALUPARA PT-I PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM 78: NIRMAL BARMAN S/O LATE KAMALA KANTA BARMAN AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL- RAJAPARA PT-II PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM 79: SIBANGKAR BARMAN S/O BARUN BARMAN AGE ABOUT 31 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - KHAMAR PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM

¶106

80: SISIR KUMAR BARMAN S/O RANBAHADUR BARMAN AGE ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDENT OF RAJAPARA PT-II

¶107

Page No.# 19/34

¶108

PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM

¶109

81: PURNIMA BARMAN S/O TEPU BARMAN AGE ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDENT OF RAJAPARA PT-II PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM

¶110

82: CHATIK BARMAN S/O MAHESH BARMAN AGE ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDENT OF RAJAPARA PT-II PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM

¶111

83: PRODYUT KUMAR ADHIKARY S/O AMIYO KR. ADHIKARY AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - KHAMAR PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM

¶112

84: SARASWATI BARMAN S/O PARESH BARMAN AGE ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDENT OF BAGRIBARI PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM

¶113

85: MALOTI BARMAN S/O MATIRAM BARMAN AGE ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDENT OF RAJAPARA PT-II PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349

¶114

Page No.# 20/34

¶115

ASSAM

¶116

86: BHARATI BARMAN S/O TAPAN BARMAN AGE ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDENT OF RAJAPARA PT-II PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM 87: KAMINI BARMAN S/O NALU BARMAN AGE ABOUT 74 YEARS RESIDENT OF RAJAPARA PT-II PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM 88: KASHI BARMAN S/O NALU BARMAN AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDENT OF RAJAPARA PT-II PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM 89: BIKRAM BARMAN S/O NIRANJAN BARMAN AGE ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL - KHAMAR PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM 90: RADHIKA ADHIKARY C/O RANJITADHIKARY AGE ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL KHAMAR PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN 783349 ASSAM

¶117

91: SABITA BARMAN

¶118

Page No.# 21/34

¶119

S/O RABIKANTA BARMAN AGE ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILL -RAJAPARA PT-I PO AND PS BAGRIBARI DT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783349 ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY BTR SECRETARIATE KOKRAJHAR ASSAM 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DIST KOKRAJHAR BTR ASSAM. REP. BY THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER 4:THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (CIVIL) PARBATJORA KOKRAJHAR BTR ASSAM 5:THE CIRCLE OFFICER BOGORIBARI REVENUE CIRCLE PARBATJORA KOKRAJHAR BTR ASSAM 6:THE SRI MAHAMAYA DHAM COMMITTEE MAHAMAYA BOGORIBARI PARBATJORA KOKRAJHAR BTR ASSAM ------------

¶120

Page No.# 22/34

¶121

B E F O R E

¶122

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

¶123

Advocates for the petitioner(s) : Mr. JI Borbhuiya

¶124

Mr. SK Saikia

¶125

Advocates for the respondent(s) : Mr. D Nath,

¶126

Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam

¶127

Date on which Judgment is reserved : NA

¶128

Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 10.02.2026

¶129

Whether the Pronouncement is of the : NA

¶130

Operative Part of the Judgment

¶131

Whether the Full Judgment has been : Yes Pronounced

¶132

JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)

¶133

Heard Mr. JI Borbhuiya, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in both the writ petitions. I have also heard Mr. D Nath, the learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam, who appears on behalf of the State of Assam as well as the District Administration and Mr. BC Muchahary, the learned Standing Counsel, who appears on behalf of the BTC as well as Sri Mahamaya Dham Committee, Bogoribari, Parbatjhora, Kokrajhar which is a Committee constituted

¶134

Page No.# 23/34

¶135

by the BTC.

¶136

101 writ petitioners have approached this Court by filing the instant writ petitions seeking protection from forceful eviction by the respondents. The materials on record show that the North East Council had allotted certain funds to the Assam Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. (for short,’ the ATDC’) for creation of facilities for tourists at Maa Mahamaya Dham, Bogoribari, Assam. A company namely, M/s. SBF Commercial Pvt. Ltd was awarded the construction work with a contract value of Rs.11,35,90,000/- for creation of the facilities for tourist at Mahamaya Temple Dham. The period of completion as mentioned in the work order dated 20.11.2023 was 18(eighteen) months. The scope of the work included construction of a Guest House (G+1 storey building); construction of a rest house (G+1 storey building); market single storey building; and site development work including development of the exiting pond; external electrification work and furniture and fixtures as per specification.

¶137

The petitioners herein in both the writ petitions claim that they are shopkeepers carrying out the business of selling items required for puja and other ancillary items within the vicinity of the Mahamaya Temple at Dhubri. They claim that they are mostly carrying on their

¶138

Page No.# 24/34

¶139

business by setting up their shops below the staircase of the Mahamaya Dham Temple as was permitted by the Mahamaya Mandir Managing Committee as far back as on 06.04.1973.

¶140

The grievance for which the petitioners have approached this Court is that in view of the steps being taken for creation of facilities for tourist at Mahamaya Temple Dhubri they would lose their livelihood though they were permitted by the Mahamaya Mandir Managing Committee to establish their shops below the staircase.

¶141

When the first of the writ petitions were filed, i.e. WP(C)No.6437/2024, on 04.12.2024, this Court passed an order of status-quo with regard to the demolition carried out till the next date. However, subsequently, by an order dated 24.01.2025, this Court, while issuing notice observed that the status-quo order so passed on 04.12.2024 shall remain limited to the 10(ten) writ petitioners in WP(C)No.6437/2024 till the next date of hearing. The interim orders, as it appears from the materials on record, have been continued thereafter in WP(C) No.6437/2024.

¶142

It is very pertinent to take note of that taking into account that the order passed on 24.01.2025 was limited to those 10 petitioners,

¶143

Page No.# 25/34

¶144

who are the writ petitioners in WP(C)No.6437/2024, 91 petitioners joined together to file the second writ petition on 14.02.2025, which was registered and numbered as WP(C)No.953/2025.

¶145

The record reveals that in pursuance to the filing of the said writ petition vide an order dated 05.04.2025, this Court issued notice in WP(C)No.953/2025 and passed an interim order that there shall not be any demolition of shops of the petitioners and/or eviction process till the next returnable date. The interim orders so passed in both the writ petitions have been extended from time to time.

¶146

It is very pertinent to take note of an order passed by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 13.06.2025 whereby, the learned Coordinate Bench directed the Deputy Commissioner, Kokrajhar to make an enquiry/survey and file an affidavit thereby incorporating the detail particulars of such shopkeepers, the location of their shops, number of shops, if any, proof of payment of rent by the petitioners, allotment letters issued by the Temple Authority. It was also mentioned that the State respondents shall also file a separate affidavit bringing on record the detailed plan of the proposed market area for just determination of the cases.

¶147

The record reveals that an affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the

¶148

Page No.# 26/34

¶149

respondent No.3 in WP(C) No.6437/2024. It is mentioned at paragraph No.3 of the said affidavit-in-opposition that prior to the initiation of the construction work, several rounds of discussions were held at different levels and the Vendors’ Association were well aware of the proposed plan of the market complex and committed to cooperating with the Mahamaya Mandir Managing Committee. It was also mentioned that the shopkeepers voluntarily consented to relocate their shops to a nearby place for temporary adjustment in due time prior to the commencement of the construction and the shopkeepers were also assured by the Mahamaya Mandir Managing Committee that upon the completion of the construction work, they would permanently be shifted to the newly constructed market complex. It was also stated that the construction company faced obstructions during the execution of the construction work, despite repeated requests by the Mahamaya Mandir Managing Committee and the Contractor. The shopkeepers did not relocate their shops from the construction site and it is under such circumstances, intervention was sought for from the Sub-divisional Officer (Civil) on 04.11.2024.

¶150

This Court also finds it very pertinent to take note of the affidavit filed by the respondent No.3 in WP(C)No.953/2025, inasmuch as, the said affidavit is in pursuance to the order passed by this Court on 13.06.2025, as referred to herein above. In the said affidavit, it is

¶151

Page No.# 27/34

¶152

mentioned that an enquiry was conducted by the Additional District Commissioner and i/c, SDO (Civil) for Parbatjhora Kokrajhar and the register, documents and records available in the office of the Mahamaya Mandir Managing Committee were taken into considertion. What is revealed in the enquiry have been mentioned in paragraph No.5 of the said affidavit. Taking into account the importance of such revelation, this Court finds it relevant to reproduce the paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of the affidavit filed in WP(C)No.953/2025 as hereinunder:

¶153

“5. That in so far as the writ petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 953/2025, the enquiry reveals that -

¶154

(a) The petitioner Nos.12. 17. 21, 23, 24, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 47, 48, 49, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56. 58. 59. 61. 64. 69. 70. 72. 75.76, 77. 79, 81, 82,83, 84,85, 86 and 89 in W.P. (C) No. 953/2025, there is no record as shop keeper in the Register of Mahamaya Mandir Committee. The aforesaid petitioners never paid any revenue / rent for their shop to the Mandir Committee and they are not genuine shop keepers.

¶155

(b) The record available with the Mahamaya Mandir Managing Committee reveals that the aforesaid writ petitioners had unauthorisedly run their shop at the proposed construction

¶156

Page No.# 28/34

¶157

site or below the stair case of Mahamaya Mandir premises.

¶158

(c). That the enquiry further reveals that the writ petitioners No.5, 65, 73 & 74 are neither recorded shopkeeper nor any shop is in their possession below the staircase of Mandir Premises Committee. They have never paid any rent to the Mandir Managing Committee.

¶159

(d) That in so far as the petitioner No. 1 in W.P. (C) 953/2025, on perusal of the Register it is found that one Shoilobala Barman, W/O- Lt. Sushil Barman of Village Rajapara has been enlisted as shop keeper. No person in the name of Soilobala Barman, S/O- Nurin Karji of Vill- Rajapara Pt-II had been authorized by Mandir Committee to run a shop there.

¶160

(e) That the records shows that the writ petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 25, 26, 27,31 36, 42, 44, 46, 50, 51, 57, 60, 63, 66, 67, 68, 71, 78, 80, 87 and 88 in W.P. (C) No. 953/2025 are the genuine shop keepers, who have been running their respective shop there and also paid Revenue/ rent to the Mandir Managing Committee, till the month of December, 2023. The authority has no intention to demolish any shop and it is clear that the genuine shops that are required to be shifted will be allotted a site/shop in the newly constructed market complex on the

¶161

Page No.# 29/34

¶162

completion of the construction works. The shop are located below the staircase of the Mahamaya Mandir premises and beside both side of the road followed to the Mandir.

¶163

(f) The enquiry further reveals that the petitioner no. 33 Mili Barman is the wife of Sibesh Barman, S/O: Nagen Barman (president of Vendor Association), has been unauthorisedly running a shop there. Sibesh Barman is also the petitioner no.1 in WP(C) No. 6437/2024. Further petitioner no. 90, Radhika Adhikari, wife of Ranjit Adhikari, (Secretary of Vendor Association) has no shop in her name there. Besides, Ranjit Adhikari being Govt. employee, who is running a shop there in the name and style of Hotel Nandan Kanon in the bank of Mandir Pond which obstructs in continuation of proposed development of pond work. Same is the fact with petitioner no.91 wherein revenue was paid by Rabikanta Barman but writ petition is filed by Sabita Barman.

¶164

That in so far as the writ petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 6437/2024 is concerned, the deponent begs to state that the 9 (nine) Nos. of writ petitioners in the writ petition do not have any shop located at the construction site that are required to be relocated. Further the petitioner No. 2, Niloy Kumar Bhattacharjee is not a shopkeeper.”

¶165

Page No.# 30/34

¶166

From the above-quoted paragraph Nos.5 and 6, it appears that in respect to 44 out of 91 writ petitioners in WP(C)No.953/2025, there are no records as shopkeepers in the register of Mahamaya Mandir Managing Committee. There are also no records that those petitioners paid any revenue/rent for their shops to the Mandir Committee, and as such, they are not genuine shopkeepers.

¶167

It further appears that the writ petitioner Nos.5, 65, 73, and 74 of WP(C)No.953/2025 are neither recorded shopkeepers nor any shop is there in their possession below the staircase of the Mandir premises. Further to that, it is also mentioned that the petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 25, 26, 27, 31, 36, 42, 44, 46, 50, 51, 57, 60, 63, 66, 67, 68, 71, 78, 80, 87, and 88 in WP(C)No.953/2025 are genuine shopkeepers, who are running their respective shops by paying revenue/rent to the Mahamaya Mandir Managing Committee till the month of December 2023.

¶168

It is of importance to note the statement made at paragraph 5(e) as quoted above that the authority has no intention to demolish any shops and the genuine shops that are required to be shifted would be allotted a site/shop in the newly constructed market complex on the completion of the construction work. Further to that, it is also mentioned that the 9 Nos. of petitioners in

¶169

Page No.# 31/34

¶170

WP(C)No.6437/2024 do not have any shops at the construction site that are required to be relocated. In addition to that, the petitioner No.2 in WP(C)No.6437/2024 is not a shopkeeper.

¶171

The petitioners thereupon had filed a reply in WP(C)No.6437/2024, reiterating their stand in the writ petition.

¶172

This Court had heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and had also perused the materials on record.

¶173

During the course of the hearing, Mr. D Nath, the learned Senior Government Advocate, who appears on behalf of the State Government as well as the District Administration placed before this Court 3(three) photographs, a Site Plan of the proposed construction to be carried out for the market. It was submitted during the course of the hearing that the area wherein the market complex would be constructed is within the Blue Line as shown in the said photographs. The said photographs are kept on record and marked with the letters ‘A’, ‘B’, and ‘C’. In addition to that, the Site Plan which is placed is kept on record and marked with the letter ‘D’.

¶174

In the background of the above pleadings as well as the

¶175

Page No.# 32/34

¶176

documents which were placed before this Court, the question, therefore, arises as to whether this Court should interfere with the construction to be carried out in terms with the work order dated 11.02.2023, issued to M/s. SBF Commercial Pvt. Ltd.

¶177

In the previous segments of the instant judgment, while considering the affidavit so filed by the respondent No.3 in WP(C)No.953/2025, it is mentioned that those genuine shopkeepers, who have to be relocated in view of the construction to be carried out would be accommodated in the newly constructed market complex.

¶178

This Court cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that if there are shopkeepers carrying on business in the area which belongs to the Mahamaya Mandir Managing Committee without any permission, they are not entitled to any equitable relief, taking into account that the said persons knew it very well at the time of establishing their shops that they have no right to do so. Be that as it may, this Court finds it pertinent to observe that an opportunity should be given to all the petitioners, who have been mentioned as not genuine shopkeepers in the affidavit filed by the respondent No.3 to prove that they are genuine shopkeepers having set up shops with due permission as well as paying rent/revenue to the Mahamaya Mandir Managing Committee.

¶179

Page No.# 33/34

¶180

Considering the above, this Court, therefore, disposes of both the writ petitions with the following observations and directions:

¶181

(i). The respondent authorities herein shall be at liberty to carry out the necessary constructions for the creation of tourist facilities in the Mahamaya Temple Dhubri, Assam. In doing so, if there is a requirement of carrying out any demolition, the respondent authorities are at liberty to do so. However, in respect to those genuine shopkeepers, who have to shift or relocate or whose shops have been demolished, those shopkeepers have to be accommodated in the new market complex which is proposed to be constructed as it is the undertaking given before this Court at paragraph 5(e) of the affidavit filed by the respondent No.3 in WP(C)No.953/2025 that they would be provided site/shop in the proposed market complex.

¶182

(ii). This Court further observes that in the circumstance, the other petitioners herein, who have been held to be not genuine in the affidavit filed by the respondent No.3 in WP(C)No.953/2025 are in possession of documents which would show that they with the permission of the Mahamaya Mandir Managing Committee have set up their shops and further have been paying the rent to the said Committee, they shall be at liberty to approach the respondent No.3 as well as the Mahamaya Mandir Managing Committee seeking allotment in the market complex which is to be constructed. Such petitioners would be required to submit respective representations

¶183

Page No.# 34/34

¶184

along with documents for proving that they have set up their shops on the basis of permission and they have been paying the rent to the Mahamaya Mandir Managing Committee till the month of December, 2023.

¶185

(iii). The respondent No. 3 i.e. the District Commissioner, Kokrajhar as well as the Mahamaya Mandir Managing Committee shall look into such grievances and shall do the needful. It is observed that in the circumstance, if the petitioners referred to at Clause (ii) hereinabove are successful in showing that they have established the shops with due permission and have also been paying the rent/revenue to the Mahamaya Mandir Managing Committee till December, 2023, then in such circumstances, those petitioners shall also be similarly situated with the other petitioners, who have been referred to at Clause (i) hereinabove and should be provided allotment in the proposed new market complex.

¶186

JUDGE

¶187

Digitally signed by Shivani Shivani Gautam Gautam Date: 2026.02.16 15:23:03 +05'30'

¶188

Comparing Assistant

Soilo Bala Barman and Ors. v. the State of Assam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soilo Bala Barman and Ors. v. the State of Assam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Ratna Kanta Nath and othrs Vs the State of Assam and Othrs

Johirul Islam and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Smtl Lili Dutta Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Sibesh Barman and 9 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Rana Deb Saikia Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

Sk Abdulla and 45 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.