SHRI. ABDUR RAZAK CHOUDHURY v. THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 7 ORS
Court: Gauhati High Court
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
Judgment date:
Case summary
Gauhati High Court judgment dated 2024-02-19. SHRI. ABDUR RAZAK CHOUDHURY v. THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 7 ORS. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
Page No. # 1/3 GAHC020000372021 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C)/7/2021 SHRI. ABDUR RAZAK CHOUDHURY PROPRIETOR OF M/S SANGAM EGG MART, R/O MORGI PATTI, DIAMPUR, NAGALAND VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 7 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND, KOHIMA 2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DIMAPUR NAGALAND 3:THE EXTRA ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER(REV) O/O THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DIMAPUR NAGALAND 4:SMTI. MAHAMUDA KHATUN C/O INDUSTRIAL ESTATE COLONY DIMAPUR NAGALAND 5:SMTI. ACHIA KHATUN C/O INDUSTRIAL ESTATE COLONY DIMAPUR NAGALAND 6:SMTI. SAHERA KHATUN Page No. # 2/3 C/O INDUSTRIAL ESTATE COLONY DIMAPUR NAGALAND 7:RABIAS KHATUN C/O INDUSTRIAL ESTATE COLONY DIMAPUR NAGALAND 8:SHRI. NITOVI A. WOTSA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE COLONY DIMAPUR NAGALAN Advocate for the Petitioner : C. T. JAMIR, SR. ADV Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 19. 02. 2024 Heard Mr.
Aliba Ozukum, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Imti Imsong, learned Additional A. G. , Nagaland appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3. None has appeared on behalf of the private respondents on call. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Order dated 20. 01. 2021, whereby the petitioners objection filed to the mutation granted in favour of the private respondent No. 8 had been rejected. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was granted an oral allotment in the year 1975 and on the basis thereon the petitioner has been carrying out business. Be that as it may, on the basis of materials on record it is the opinion of this Court that for deciding as to whether the petitioner has any right over the land it would require examination of evidence, both oral and documentary, Page No. # 3/3 which this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot do so.
Considering the above, this Court dismisses the instant writ petition on the ground of maintainability. Be that as it may, the dismissal of the writ petition would not prejudice the petitioner to avail remedies before the competent Court of civil jurisdiction. Sd/- JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Source: Gauhati High Court. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.