Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/3000/2016 of NATIONAL BOARDS LIMITED Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS on 28 July 2026
GAHC010018812016 2026:GAU-AS:10458 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3000/2016 NATIONAL BOARDS LIMITED FORMERLY ASSAM HARDBOARD LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PANIKHAITI GHY- 26 AND HEAD OFFICE AT 5 FANCY LANE KOLKATA AND
GAHC010018812016
2026:GAU-AS:10458
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3000/2016
NATIONAL BOARDS LIMITED
FORMERLY ASSAM HARDBOARD LTD.
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PANIKHAITI
GHY- 26 AND HEAD OFFICE AT 5 FANCY LANE
KOLKATA AND IS REP. BY DIRECTOR
RAJ KUMAR BAJAJ.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS
REP. BY THE DY. COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP METROPOLITAN DEPTT.
GHY- 1.
2:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
CHANDRAPUR REVENUE CIRCLE
PANIKHAITI
GHY- 26.
3:THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
GUWAHATI
GHY- 3.
4:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE
CHANDRAPUR P.S.
GHY- 26.
5:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE
PANIKHAITI P.P.
GHY- 26.
6:THE RECOVERY OFFICER
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL
B. BAROOAH COLLEGE ROAD
ULUBARI
GHY- 7.
7:STRESSED ASSET STABILISATION FUND
FORMERLY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA
IDBI TOWER
5TH FLOOR
WTC COMPLEX
CUFFEE PARADE
MUMBAI- 400005
8:NAND DULAL SARKAR
S/O- LT. AMULYA RATAN SARKAR
R/O- BAIGNABARI
PANIKHAITI
GHY- 26.
------------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. M. Kataki, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M. Dutta, Sr. Advocate Ms. M. Barman, Govt. Advocate Mr. D. Malakar, Advocate BEFORE
HONOURABLE 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.
ORDER
Date : 29.07.2026
Heard Mr. M. Kataki, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. M. Barman, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Mr. M. Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. D. Malakar, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 7.
2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in taking action on the basis of the FIRs filed by the petitioner for prosecuting the private respondents. The petitioner has also sought for relief that the land which is under the occupation of the private respondents be retrieved by the official respondents and thereupon the said land be redelivered to the respondent No. 6, who is the Recovery Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
3. This Court has perused the materials on record and is of the opinion that the reliefs which have been sought for in the present writ petition, under no circumstances can be granted in favour of the petitioner.
4. On account of non-registration of the FIRs, the petitioner ought to have availed the statutory remedy. For non-registration or for not taking due action on the basis of the filing of the FIRs, the petitioner had the opportunity of availing the statutory remedy as provided under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. If the petitioner was aggrieved as regards the grabbing of the petitioner's land, the petitioner had the opportunity of availing the remedy before the Special Tribunal set up in terms of the Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2010. The petitioner cannot, by way of invoking the public law remedy, convert this proceeding into a proceeding for recovery of the possession of the land.
5. Under such circumstances, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the instant writ petition is totally misconceived and not maintainable.
6. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.
7. Before parting with the record, this Court, however, observes that the dismissal of the instant writ petition is on the ground that this Court is not inclined to entertain the present dispute and, as such, the same shall not prejudice or preclude the petitioner from approaching the appropriate forum, if so advised.
8. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant