Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/5169/2025 of NASIBUR RAHMAN Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS.ORS on 1 September 2026
GAHC010200382025 2026:GAU-AS:12671 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5169/2025 NASIBUR RAHMAN S/O. LT. MOTIUR RAHMAN, R/O. VILL.- CHEDAMARI, P/O. BALAPARA, P/S. JOGIGHOPA, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND
GAHC010200382025
2026:GAU-AS:12671
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5169/2025
NASIBUR RAHMAN
S/O. LT. MOTIUR RAHMAN, R/O. VILL.- CHEDAMARI, P/O. BALAPARA, P/S.
JOGIGHOPA, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS.ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVBT. OF
ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISEASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, JANATA BHAWAN, DISPUR-06.
2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE AND DISEASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
JANATA BHAWAN
DISPUR-06
3:INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.
REP. BY THE CHIEF DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER
SECTOR-3
NOONMATI
GUWAHATI-20
ASSAM.
4:SENIOR SALES OFFICER
BONGAIGAON II REATAILS SALES AREA
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.
EAST POINT TOWER
4TH FLOOR
BAMUNIMAIDAM-21
5:CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN PARIVARSH BHAWAN
EAST ARJUN NAGAR
DELHI-110032
6:THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUM DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BONGAIGAON
ASSAM
PIN-783380
7:LOK PRAKASH KALITA
S/O. LT. KANAK KALITA
R/O. VILL.- ISLAMPUR NORTH
P/O. AND P/S. JOGIGHOPA
DIST. BONGAIGAON
ASSAM
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. Sarmah, Advocate Mr. K. Mohammed, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Ms. G. Hazarika, SC, Revenue Mr. H. Gupta, Advocate Mr. S. Baruah, Advocate MR. S. R.Baruah, Govt. Advocate
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
02.09.2026
Heard Mr. R. Sarmah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Ms. G. Hazarika, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent No.1 & 2; Mr. H. Gupta, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos.3 & 4; Mr. S. Baruah, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the
Respondent No.5 and Mr. S. R. Baruah, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent No.6.
2. The present writ petition is filed by the Petitioner challenging the Letter of Intent issued in favour of the Respondent No.7 primarily on the ground that the said Letter of Intent has been issued in respect to Dag Nos.227 and 228 of Patta Nos.46, 130 of village Koreya, Part-I in the district of Bongaigaon, but the Respondent No.7 is constructing the retail outlet in the aforementioned Dags along with Dag No.235.
3. The allegation of the Petitioner in the present proceedings is that Dag No.235 is a Government Khas land and the Respondent No.7 could not have been awarded the retail outlet dealership to construct over the Government Khas land.
4. Pursuant to the filing of the instant writ petition, an affidavit was filed by the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 on 27.11.2025. In the said affidavit, the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 have enclosed the Letter of Intent so issued to the Respondent No.7 wherein it is categorically mentioned that the piece of land so offered by the Respondent No.7 admeasures 1225 sq.m. approximately;35 meter (frontage) X 35 meter (depth) at Dag Nos.227, 228 of Patta Nos.46, 130 of village Koriya Part-I in the district of Bongaigaon, Assam. There is no reference to Dag No.235 in the
Letter of Intent.
5. This Court has also taken note of the report submitted by the Circle Officer, Boitamari Revenue Circle wherein it is categorically mentioned that Dag No.235 is a Government Dag and it is not being used/utilized by the proposed retail outlet and lies outside the possession area of the retail HSD/MS outlet. It is also mentioned in the said report that neither residential nor educational institution and hospitals are situated within 30 meters and 50 meters respectively in terms with the radial distance from the proposed retail outlet. Apart from that, it is mentioned that the proposed retail outlet is 50 meters away from the center of the ROW.
6. Considering the said report of the Circle Officer, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the very basis on which the writ petition has been premised appears to be misconceived.
7. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition for which the writ petition stands dismissed.
8. No costs.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant