Gauhati High Court
MC/40/2026 of DULAL KHAKHALARY Vs BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD on 14 July 2026
GAHC010129062026 2026:GAU-AS:9670 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : MC/40/2026 DULAL KHAKHALARY S/O- LATE DHARJYA KHAKHALARY, R/O- VILLAGE KOTHAKUTHI PART II, P.O- KOTHKUTHI, P.S- DHUPDHARA, DIST- GOALPARA, ASSAM, PIN-783123 VERSUS
GAHC010129062026
2026:GAU-AS:9670
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MC/40/2026
DULAL KHAKHALARY
S/O- LATE DHARJYA KHAKHALARY, R/O- VILLAGE KOTHAKUTHI PART II, P.O- KOTHKUTHI, P.S- DHUPDHARA, DIST- GOALPARA, ASSAM, PIN-783123
VERSUS
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, BUSINESS PLAN RETAIL
NEBPCL, 1ST FLOOR, NEXIA PARK, GMCH ROAD, CHRISTIAN BASTI, GUWAHATI, ASSAM- 5.
2:THE TERRITORIAL MANAGER (RETAIL)
GUWAHATI
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED
1ST FLOOR
NEXIA PARK
GMCH ROAD
CHRISTIAN BASTI
GUWAHATI-781005.
3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
P.O
P.S AND DIST- GOALPARA
ASSAM
PIN-783101
4:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
(T)
GOALPARA DIVISION
P.O AND P.S- GOALPARA
DISTRICT- GOALPARA
ASSAM
PIN- 783101.
5:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
RANGJULI REVENUE CIRCLE
RANGJULI
DISTRICT- GOALPARA
ASSAM
PIN- 783134.
6:THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER
RANGJULI RANGE
RANGJULI
DISTRICT- GOALPARA
ASSAM
PIN- 783134
For the Applicant(s) : Mr. H. Das, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. H.K. Hazarika, Jr. Govt. Advocate Mr. I. Borthakur, Standing Counsel Mr. S. Borthakur, Standing Counsel 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 : 15.07.2026
Heard Mr. H. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant. Mr. S. Borthakur, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2; Mr. I. Borthakur, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 and 6; and Mr. H.K. Hazarika, the learned Junior Government Advocate appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 5.
2. This is an application for recall of the order dated 11.06.2026 passed in WP(C) No. 4838/2024 on the ground that the withdrawal of the writ petition would prejudice the applicant in future proceedings.
3. This Court has duly perused the accompanying writ petition wherein the applicant claims to be the owner of a plot of land admeasuring 5 Bighas covered by Dag No. 60 of Patta No. 67 situated at Revenue Village Kothakuthi Part-IV under Rangjuli Revenue Circle in the district of Goalpara, Assam. Out of the said land 2 Bighas were leased to one Himadri Das for setting up a retail outlet of the respondent No. 1.
4. The grievance of the applicant, for which the writ petition was filed, pertains to the issuance of a notice dated 27.08.2024 by the Forest Department. It was the specific case of the applicant that the land in question is a patta land and, therefore, the forest officials had no jurisdiction to issue the said notice.
5. Be that as it may, prior to the interim order passed by this Court on 23.09.2024, the applicant had already been evicted by the Forest Department on the basis of the notice dated 27.08.2024.
6. Under such circumstances, the remedy available to the applicant lies before the competent Civil Court for seeking an appropriate declaration of his right, title and interest over his plot of land, along with consequential relief for recovery of possession.
7. This Court duly takes note of that while the learned counsel for the applicant had submitted before this Court on 11.06.2026 that he may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to avail the appropriate remedy under law, there was no mention that such withdrawal should not prejudice the applicant in subsequent proceedings inasmuch as without such observation, the applicant may be prejudiced in subsequent proceedings.
8. Accordingly, the instant application stands disposed of by observing that the withdrawal of the accompanying writ petition by the applicant, with liberty to avail such remedies as may be permissible under law, shall not prejudice the applicant. It is further observed that, in the circumstance the applicant, if advised, approaches the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction, the withdrawal of the writ petition shall not prejudice the applicant in such proceedings.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant