Gauhati High Court
MC/60/2026 of MD RAFIQUDDIN AND ORS Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS on 1 September 2026
GAHC010184672026 2026:GAU-AS:12729 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : MC/60/2026 MD RAFIQUDDIN AND ORS S/O. LT. DEVANATH ULLAH, VILL. PACHIM DHANI RAM PATHAR, MOUZA- HOJAI, P.S. HOJAI, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN-782435. 2: MUSTT.
GAHC010184672026
2026:GAU-AS:12729
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MC/60/2026
MD RAFIQUDDIN AND ORS
S/O. LT. DEVANATH ULLAH, VILL. PACHIM DHANI RAM PATHAR, MOUZA- HOJAI, P.S. HOJAI, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN-782435.
2: MUSTT. SARUTUN NESSA
S/O. LT. HABIB ALI
3: MD. AFTABUDDIN ALI
S/O. LT. AYUB ALI
4: MD. AKADDAS ALI
S/O. LT. ARAB ALI
5: MAINUDDIN @ MAJIBAR RAHMAN
S/O. MD. MAJUR ALI
6: ON THE DEATH OF KUTUB ALI @ FAZIR ALI
HIS LEGAL HEIRS
7: MD. SAMSUL HOQUE
S/O. ABDUL KADIR
8: SALIM HUSSIN NOTICE SENT AFTABUDDIN
S/O. LT. TANJID ALI
9: MUBARAK ALI
(NOTICE TO KUTUB ALI)
S/O. LT
HAJI SHAKIR ALI CHOUDHURY
10: JALALUDDIN
S/O. LT. SARAFUTULLA NOTICE TO SARAFUTULLAH ALL ARE OF VILL.
PACHIM DHANI RAM PATHAR
MOUZA-HOJAI
P.S. HOJAI
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM.
11: PIYARA BEGUM
W/O LATE KUTUB ALI @ FAZIR ALI
12: KASIM ALI
S/O LATE KUTUB ALI @ FAZIR ALI
13: MD. NIYAZ UDDIN
S/O LATE KUTUB ALI @ FAZIR ALI
14: MD. SABIR AHMED
S/O LATE KUTUB ALI @ FAZIR AL
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-
06.
2:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
HOJAI.
3:THE ADDL. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
HOJAI CUM S.D.O. C.
4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
HOJAI REVENUE CIRCLE
HOJAI
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR ARJU IKBAL, MR A A DEWAN
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC. REVENUE,GA, ASSAM
Linked Case : WP(C)/6616/2016
MD. RAFIQUDDIN and 9 ORS.
S/O. LT. DEVANATH ULLAH
2: MUSTT. SARUTUN NESSA
S/O. LT. HABIB ALI
3: MD. AFTABUDDIN ALI
S/O. LT. AYUB ALI
4: MD. AKADDAS ALI
S/O. LT. ARAB ALI
5: MAINUDDIN @ MAJIBAR RAHMAN
S/O. MD. MAJUR ALI
6: KUTUB ALI @ FAZIR ALI
S/O. LT. BHERAI MIA
7: MD. SAMSUL HOQUE
S/O. ABDUL KADIR
8: SALIM HUSSIN NOTICE SENT AFTABUDDIN
S/O. LT. TANJID ALI
9: MUBARAK ALI
NOTICE TO KUTUB ALI
S/O. LT
HAJI SHAKIR ALI CHOUDHURY
10: JALALUDDIN
S/O. LT. SARAFUTULLA NOTICE TO SARAFUTULLAH ALL ARE OF VILL.
PACHIM DHANI RAM PATHAR
MOUZA-HOJAI
P.S. HOJAI
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REP. BY COMM. and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
REVENUE DEPTT.
DISPUR
GHY.-06.
2:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
HOJAI.
3:THE ADDL. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
HOJAI CUM S.D.O. C.
4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
HOJAI REVENUE CIRCLE
HOJAI.
------------
Advocate for : MRS.S Y BEGUM
Advocate for : SC
REVENUE appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
Page No.# 5/6
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR
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. A A Dewan, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Hazarikia, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2-4. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the petitioner could not cause appearance on behalf of the petitioner on 25.06.2026 and prior dates, since his name had not been reflected in the cause list and he was unaware of the listing of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that on an earlier occasion, when the writ petition had been dismissed for non-prosecution, a misc case had been filed by the present set of counsels showing cause that it was because of the demise of the earlier counsel engaged by the petitioner that there was no appearance and therefore, this Court on the earlier occasion had restored the writ petition. He has submitted that presently the names of the counsels have not been correctly reflected in the cause list and therefore, the matter had come to the stage of dismissal for non-prosecution, which is reflected in the order dated 15.07.2026. I have heard the submissions made; I have also considered the records of the writ petition and the earlier misc case. It appears that the Vakalatnama had been filed in Misc. Case No. 30/2026, and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the misc case was allowed, restoring the writ petition. Since no vakalatnama had been filed in the writ petition after the restoration of the same through the orders passed in Misc Case No. 30/2026, the cause list did not reflect the name of the present set of counsels. Having regard to the cause shown for the non-appearance on behalf of the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that the application for restoration may be considered in the positive. The learned counsel has objected to such restoration on the ground that the petitioner was under an obligation to have followed the progress of this case, which was not done. However, for the reasons already stated, I am of the considered view that the writ petition deserves restoration for adjudication on merits. Accordingly, WP(C) No. 6616/2026 is restored to its original number. Misc Case is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant