Gauhati High Court
I.A.(Civil)/2743/2026 of SANJUL ALI Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 27 August 2026
GAHC010154382026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No.: I.A.(Civil)/2743/2026 SANJUL ALI C/O MOKTAB ALI R/O PACHANIYAPARA BONGARA P.O. BONGARA P.S. AZARA DISTRICT KAMRUP METRO PIN- 781015 ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM
GAHC010154382026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No.: I.A.(Civil)/2743/2026
SANJUL ALI
C/O MOKTAB ALI R/O PACHANIYAPARA
BONGARA
P.O. BONGARA
P.S. AZARA
DISTRICT KAMRUP METRO
PIN- 781015
ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
ASSAM
JANATA BHAWAN
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
REVENUE DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
GOVT. OF ASSAM
JANATA BHAWAN
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006
3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP R
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
AMINGAON
DISTRICT - KAMRUP RURAL
ASSAM -781031
4:THE CO DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
PALASBARI
OFFICE OF THE CO-DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
MIRZA
DISTRICT - KAMRUP RURAL
ASSAM - 781125.
5:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE CIRCLE OFFICER
PALASBARI
MIRZA
DISTRICT - KAMRUP RURAL
ASSAM - 781125.
6:ARBINA SULTANA
D/O- ASHRAF ALI AHMED
VILLAGE PACHANIAPARA
P.O BONGORA
P.S AZARA
DIST- KAMRUP M
ASSAM
PIN-781015.
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Z. Khalid, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. H. Sarmah, Addl. Sr. 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
28.08.2026 This is an application filed for impleading the Opposite Party No.6 as the Respondent No.6 in the accompanying writ petition.
It is relevant to take note of that the Opposite Party No.6 is admittedly the landowner wherein the Petitioner/the Applicant is residing.
2. In the opinion of this Court, the instant application is misconceived in as much as the Opposite Party No.6 cannot be impleaded as the Respondent in the accompanying writ petition. At best, the Opposite Party No.6 can file a separate application seeking impleadment as a co-Petitioner.
3. Accordingly, the instant application stands rejected as being misconceived.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant