Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/669/2026 of BIMAN GOGOI Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS on 9 June 2026
GAHC010011472026 2026:GAU-AS:8275 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/669/2026 BIMAN GOGOI SON OF LATE LAKESWAR GOGOI, VILL- BHAKAT GAON, P.O. AND P.S. MATHURAPUR, DIST- CHARAIDEO, PIN- 785689, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND
GAHC010011472026
2026:GAU-AS:8275
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/669/2026
BIMAN GOGOI
SON OF LATE LAKESWAR GOGOI, VILL- BHAKAT GAON, P.O. AND P.S.
MATHURAPUR, DIST- CHARAIDEO, PIN- 785689, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006.
2:THE COMMISSIONER
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
PANJABARI
JURIPAR
GUWAHATI-37
ASSAM
3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
CHARAIDEO
P.O. AND P.S. SONARI
DIST.- CAHARAIDEO
PIN- 785690
ASSAM
4:THE PRESIDENT
CHARAIDEO ZILLA PPARISHAD
P.O. AND P.S. SOONARI
DIIST- CAHARAIDEO
PIN- 785690
ASSAM
5:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
CHARAIDEO ZILLA PARISHAD
P.O. AND P.S. - SONARI
DIST- CAHARAIDEO
PIN- 785690
ASSAM
6:LAKUWA ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
LAKUWA ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT
P.O.- LAKUWA
P.S.- MATHURAPUR
DIST- CHARAIDEO
PIN- 785689
ASSAM
7:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
LAKUWA ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT
P.O.- LAKUWA
P.S.- MATHURAPUR
DIST- CHARAIDEO
PIN- 785689
ASSAM
8:MRIGEN GOGOI
SON OF LATE PUNAKANTA GOGOI
RESIDENT OF MATHURAPUR BHAKAT GAON
P.O. AND P.S.- MATHURAPUR
DIST.- CHARAIDEO
PIN- 785689
ASSA
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. Khanikar, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. G. Bokolial, Govt. Advocate Ms. N. Borah, Standing Counsel Ms. R. Gogoi, 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 : 10.06.2026
Heard Mr. A. Khanikar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. N. Borah, the learned Standing Counsel, P&RD Department appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 7. Ms. R. Gogoi, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 8. Mr. G. Bokolial, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent No. 3.
2. This is the second round of litigation in respect to the settlement of Mathurapur Weekly Bazar, which was initially settled in favour of the petitioner. However, upon a challenge being made by the respondent No. 8 to the petitioner's settlement in WP(C) No. 4664/2025, and the said challenge having succeeded, the settlement granted to the petitioner was interfered with by this Court vide judgment and order dated 24.09.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 4664/2025. Thereupon, the respondent No. 8 was granted the settlement of the said Mathurapur Weekly Bazar vide order dated 17.10.2025.
3. The petitioner has challenged the said settlement made in favour of the respondent No. 8 on the ground that the guarantor had submitted a false affidavit stating that he was in possession of land admeasuring 6 Bighas 3 Kathas 5 Lechas covered by PP No. 186 of Dag Nos. 89, 430, 689 and 758
situated at Bhakat Gaon under Silakuti Mouza in the district of Charaideo.
4. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that the owner of the said land was one Kanak Rajkonwar, who expired on 30.05.2025, and that as on the date on which the guarantor executed the affidavit, the said Sri Kanak Rajkonwar was no longer alive.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there exists another affidavit executed by Kanak Rajkonwar on 24.06.2025. According to the petitioner, the said affidavit is fraudulent inasmuch as Kanak Rajkonwar could not have executed the same, having expired on 30.05.2025.
6. This Court has duly perused the materials on record as well as the Notice Inviting Tender. From the Notice Inviting Tender, it appears as to what documents were required to be submitted by the tenderer and the guarantor. The affidavit referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner as having been executed by Kanak Rajkonwar had no material significance for the purpose of the settlement in question.
7. Apart from that, the affidavit submitted by the guarantor, Sri Tarun Rajkonwar was stating that he was the possessor of the plot of land and did not claim ownership.
8. Considering the above, this Court is of the opinion that the present case is not a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, for which, the same stands dismissed.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant