Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/108/2026 of AKKASH ALI Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS on 1 September 2026
GAHC010280042025 2026:GAU-AS:12679 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/108/2026 AKKASH ALI S/O- ASOMTULLAH @ ASOMTULLAH ALI DEWANI, R/O VILL- CHARCHERIPARA, P.O. TUMONI, P.S. SOUTH SALMARA, DIST.- SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR, ASSAM
GAHC010280042025
2026:GAU-AS:12679
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/108/2026
AKKASH ALI
S/O- ASOMTULLAH @ ASOMTULLAH ALI DEWANI, R/O VILL- CHARCHERIPARA, P.O. TUMONI, P.S. SOUTH SALMARA, DIST.- SOUTH
SALMARA MANKACHAR, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, REVENUE AND
DISASTER MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI -6
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
DISTRICT- SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR
ASSAM
3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
SOUTH SALMARA REVENUE CIRCLE
DISTRICT- SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR
ASSAM
4:THE SUB-REGISTRAR
SOUTH SALMARA
DISTRICT- SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR
ASSAM
5:MOZIAL HOQUE
S/O- LATE PANET ALI
R/O- VILL- RAJABALA BHALUK KANDI (KAWYAHAGI)
P.O.- TUMONI
P.S.- SOUTH SALMARA
DISTRICT- SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR
ASSAM
6:SOFORUDDIN AHMED
S/O LATE AZGOR ALI
R/O- VILL- RAJABALA BHALUK KANDI (KAWYAHAGI)
P.O.- TUMONI
P.S.- SOUTH SALMARA
DISTRICT- SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR
ASSA
For the Petitioner(s) : None appears
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. J. Handique, SC, Revenue Mr. M. Ahmed, 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
None appears on behalf of the Petitioner on call.
2. This Court has also taken note of the contents of the writ petition. From a perusal of the writ petition, it appears that the Petitioner is aggrieved by the mutation granted to the Respondent No.5, and as such, has submitted a representation for cancelling the mutation and the same having not been taken into consideration, the Petitioner has approached this Court.
3. It is the opinion of this Court that if the Petitioner is aggrieved by the mutation of the Respondent No.5, the same has to be done by filing a due application and not by submitting a representation.
4. Considering the above, this Court does not find the present case to be a fit case for being entertained for which the writ petition stands dismissed.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant