SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 15993

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
MD. NOOR HUSSAIN AND 5 ORS – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS – Respondent
WP(C) 761 / 2024



GAHC010030692024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/761/2024 MD. NOOR HUSSAIN AND 5 ORS S/O- KHURSHID ALI, R/O- VILLAGE NO-3 MOUZADAR GAON, P.O- NAKHUTI BAZAR, P.S- NUMDING, DIST-HOJAI, ASSAM

2: JALALUDDIN S/O- LATE ALTAB ALI R/O- VILLAGE NO-2 DEBEN GAON P.O- NAKHUTI BAZAR P.S- NUMDING DIST-HOJAI ASSAM

3: JAKIR HUSSAIN S/O- CHAN MIYA R/O- VILLAGE NO-3 MOUZADAR GAON P.O- NAKHUTI BAZAR P.S- NUMDING DIST-HOJAI ASSAM

4: NURUL HOQUE BARBHUYAN S/O- NIZAM UDDIN BARBHUYAN R/O- VILLAGE NO-1 SARTHEY GAON P.O- NAKHUTI BAZAR P.S- NUMDING DIST-HOJAI ASSAM

5: SHWEMIN AKTAR C/O- HABIBUR RAHMAN R/O- RAMSING GAON P.O- NAKHUTI BAZAR P.S- NUMDING DIST-HOJAI ASSAM

6: WAHIDUR RAHMAN S/O- KHURSHID ALI R/O- VILLAGE NO-2 DEBEN GAON P.O- NAKHUTI BAZAR P.S- NUMDING DIST-HOJAI ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER , PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT , GOVT. OF ASSAM, PANJABARI, GUWAHATI-37

2:THE PRESIDENT LUMDING ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT BAMUNGAON LANKA HOJAI PIN-782435 ASSAM

3:THE SECRETARY LUMDING ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT BAMUNGAON LANKA HOJAI PIN-782435 ASSAM

4:BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER LUMDING DEVELOPMENT BLOCK HOJAI CUM EXECUTIVE OFFICER LUMDING ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT BAMUNGAON LANKA HOJAI PIN-782435 ASSAM

5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER HOJAI DISTRICT ASSAM PIN-NO-782435

6:THE CIRCLE OFFICER LANKA REVENUE CIRCLE HOJAI ASSAM PIN. NO- 782435

7:THE MAHALDAR NAKHUTI BAZAR HOJAI ASSAM PIN. NO- 78243 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S SARMA, MR B P SARMAH,MR D DAS,MR H M R HOQUE,MR. C CHAKRAVARTY,MR. R HAZARIKA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P AND R.D., GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

ORDER

Date : 11.05.2026 Heard Mr. S. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the P&RD as well as Mr. N. Das, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6.

2. By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the impugned notices dated 01.02.2024 issued by the Lumding Anchalik Panchayat, whereby the petitioners were directed to vacate their respective shop premises immediately.

3. It is pertinent to note that on 17.02.2024, while issuing notice, this Court had stayed the operation of the impugned notices/cancellation orders till the returnable date. The said interim protection was extended from time to time primarily on the ground that no opportunity of hearing had allegedly been afforded to the petitioners prior to cancellation of the allotments of the bhetis by the Lumding Anchalik Panchayat.

4. The brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioners were issued different allotment orders by the office of the Lumding Anchalik Panchayat, Bamungaon, Lanka, Hojai, whereby individual Patta Nos. and Bheti Nos. were allotted to them for running small shops at Nakhuti Bazar under the Lumding Anchalik Panchayat.

5. It is the case of the petitioners that although they had been carrying on their business since 2003, suddenly notices dated 01.02.2024 were issued by the Office of the Lumding Anchalik Panchayat intimating them that renovation and developmental works of the fish market were to be undertaken, and consequently directing them to vacate the shops immediately. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been filed.

6. Mr. S. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the impugned notices of cancellation were not preceded by any notice or opportunity of hearing and are therefore violative of the principles of natural justice. He further submits that since the petitioners had been allotted the bhetis and pattas had also been issued in their favour by the respondent authorities, against which taxes were being regularly paid, the respondent authorities could not have directed them to vacate the shops without affording an opportunity of hearing.

7. Per contra, Mr. S. D

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top