Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/3009/2026 of HUMAYUN KABIR AND 14 ORS Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS on 9 June 2026
GAHC010113582026 2026:GAU-AS:8272 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3009/2026 HUMAYUN KABIR AND 14 ORS SON OF LATE NURUL ISLAM. 2: NAZRUL ISLAM SON OF LATE MAJIBAR RAHMAN. 3: KUTUBUDDIN SON OF NAJIMUDDIN 4: SADDAM HUSSAIN SON
GAHC010113582026
2026:GAU-AS:8272
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3009/2026
HUMAYUN KABIR AND 14 ORS
SON OF LATE NURUL ISLAM.
2: NAZRUL ISLAM
SON OF LATE MAJIBAR RAHMAN.
3: KUTUBUDDIN
SON OF NAJIMUDDIN
4: SADDAM HUSSAIN
SON OF LATE AMBAS ALI
5: IMRAN HUSSAIN
SON OF SATTAR ALI
6: AMINUR RAHMAN
SON OF LATE AJAD ALI.
7: DELOWARR HUSSAIN
SON OF LATE JOYNAL ABDIN
8: ABDUL MANNAN
SON OF LATE ABDUL KARIM
9: HAFIZUR RAHMAN
SON OF LATE JOYNAL ABDIN
10: HATEM ALI
SON OF LATE SAHID ALI.
11: AMINUL HOQUE
SON OF ABDUL KASIM
12: SAFIQUR RAHMAN
SON OF LATE NURUL ISLAM
13: SAIFUL ISLAM
SON OF MUTAZZAL HOQUE
14: ABUL KALAM
SON OF MOTAZZAL HOQUE
15: SAFIUR RAHMAN
SON OF LATE JOYNAL ABDIN
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE - RAJAPUKHURI BAGISA
P.O. CHAMNAKHAT
P.S. DHULA
IN THE DISTRICT OF DARRANG
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAI DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI - 781006, ASSAM.
2:THE DARRANG ZILLA PARISHAD
MANGALDOI
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
DISTRICT- DARRANG
ASSAM.
3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
DARRANG ZILLA PARISHAD
MANGALDOI
DISTRICT- DARRANG
ASSAM
4:THE ABHOY PUKHURI GAON PANCHAYAT
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
P.O. DHULA
IN THE DISTRICT OF DARRANG
ASSAM.
5:THE SECRETARY
ABHOY PUKHURI GAON PANCHAYAT
P.O. DHULA
IN THE DARRANG
ASSA
Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. B Rahman Advocate for the respondent(s): Ms. N Borah Standing Counsel, P & RD Department B E F O R E
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.
ORDER
10.06.2026 Heard Mr. B Rahman, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Also heard Ms. N Borah, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 3 and 5.
2. The case of the petitioners herein is that the petitioners are the land owners wherein the respondent authorities have been operating the Ambachowk Open Market and Ambachowk Cattle Market. It is the further case of the petitioners that the respondent authorities cannot call for a tender for settlement in respect to a market which falls within the private lands of the petitioners, inasmuch as, it would be violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution.
3. This Court during the course of the hearing enquired as to whether any tender in that regard has been issued for the financial year 2026-27. Mr. B Rahman, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that till date no such tender has been issued, but the petitioners are apprehensive that such tender may be issued.
4. It is the opinion of this Court that the petitioners’ cause of action for challenging such action on the part of the respondents of settling markets over the private lands of the petitioners would arise when such tenders are issued and as such, it is the further opinion of this Court that the writ petition is premature.
5. Be that as it may, this Court, however, finds it very pertinent to observe that the issue which has been raised in the instant writ petition is settled by the law laid down by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rupam Talukdar Vs. the State of Assam and Ors. reported in 2009 (4) GLT 126, wherein the learned Division Bench of this Court in categorical terms had mentioned that the settlement of markets cannot be made over private lands as it would be in violation to Article 300-A of the Constitution.
6. It is, however, very pertinent also to observe that pursuant to declaring Rule 47 of the Assam Panchayat (Financial) Rules, 2002 to be ultra vires the Constitution, Rule 47 of the said Rules have been reinserted by carrying out necessary amendments.
7. This Court also takes note of that the petitioners have sought for approval from the Gaon Panchayat as well as the Government for setting up of the private market. This Court takes note of that the said application was only filed on 27.05.2026 and, as such, this Court at this stage is not inclined to pass any directions.
8. It is observed that if after a reasonable lapse of time, the respondent authorities do not consider such application submitted by the petitioners, they would be at liberty to approach this Court.
9. Writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant