Gauhati High Court
Review.Pet./108/2026 of PURNIMA DEVI AND ANR Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. on 1 September 2026
GAHC010127962026 2026:GAU-AS:12634 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./108/2026 PURNIMA DEVI AND ANR WIFE OF LATE PURENDRA CHANDRA NATH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- ALENGMARI, P.O.- LAKHIGANJ, P.S.- BILASIPARA, DISTRICT- DHUBRI,
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010127962026
2026:GAU-AS:12634
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Review.Pet./108/2026
PURNIMA DEVI AND ANR
WIFE OF LATE PURENDRA CHANDRA NATH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- ALENGMARI, P.O.- LAKHIGANJ, P.S.- BILASIPARA, DISTRICT- DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN- 783345.
2: BIBHUJIT NATH
SON OF LATE PURENDRA CHANDRA NATH
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- ALENGMARI
P.O.- LAKHIGANJ
P.S.- BILASIPARA
DISTRICT- DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN- 783345
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, REVENUE (L.R.) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
DHUBRI
DISTRICT- DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN- 783301.
3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
BILASIPARA REVENUE CIRCLE
P.O.- BILASIPARA
DISTRICT- DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN- 783348
Page No.# 2/2
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M A ISLAM, MR J I MONDAL
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE, GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE
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.
ORDER
02.09.2026 Heard Mr. M.A. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Borah, learned Government Advocate and Mr. S. Dutta, learned standing counsel, Revenue Department, appearing for the respondents. This review petition is filed seeking review of the order dated 04.06.2026 passed in WP(C) No.1087/2026, on the ground that a copy of the rejection order dated 15.02.2026, against which a liberty was granted after withdrawal of that writ petition has not been furnished with the petitioner. Having considered the grounds as noted herein above, which obviously could not be a ground for review of the order, that too an order which was passed by allowing the prayer to withdraw the writ petition with a liberty to file afresh against certain order. Accordingly, I find no ground to review the order dated 04.06.2026 and consequently, the review petition stands dismissed. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Kardak Ete JUDGE