ZILUR RAHMAN v. GARO HILLS AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT COUNCIL AND 6 ORS.
Court: High Court of Meghalaya
Bench: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H. S. THANGKHIEW
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Meghalaya judgment dated 2025-08-27. ZILUR RAHMAN v. GARO HILLS AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT COUNCIL AND 6 ORS. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
Serial No. 09 Regular List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG WP(C). No. 87 of 2025 Date of Decision: 27. 08. 2025 Shri. Zilur Rahman, S/o: (L) Umed Ali. …Petitioners -Versus- 1. Garo Hills Autonomous District Council, Tura, Represented by the Secretary to the GHADC, Tura. 2. The Chief Executive Member, Garo Hills Autonomous District Council, Tura. 3. The Assistant Settlement Officer, I/C Land Records Branch, Garo Hills Autonomous District Council, Tura. 4. The Revenue Officer, I/C Land Records, Garo Hills Autonomous District Council, Tura. 5. Shri. Moynal Hoque, S/o: Abbas Ali, R/o: Kaimbatapara, P. O: Bholarbhita, P. S: Phulbari, Dist: West Garo Hills, Meghalaya. 6. Shri. Bodiswar Rabha, S/o: Boshiram Rabha, R/o: Kaimbatapara, P. O: Bholarbhita, P. S: Phulbari, Dist: West Garo Hills, Meghalaya. 7. Shri. Brijo Rabha, R/o: Kaimbatapara, P. O: Bholarbhita, P. S: Phulbari, Dist: West Garo Hills, Meghalaya. …Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S.
Thangkhiew, Judge Appearance: For the Petitioner/Applicant(s) : Mr. A. H. Hazarika, Adv. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Dey, SC for R 1-4. Ms. M. Rahman, Adv. for R 5,6&7. i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No Law journals etc: ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No in press: JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) 1. Today, Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1-4 GHADC, has produced a report of the Lot Mandals with regard to the demarcation. As per the report which is taken on record, it appears that the demarcation could not be successfully carried out due to certain discrepancies from the part of the petitioner himself who could not identify his possession as per the records. 2. The writ petition, when it was filed had only sought for directions to issue to the respondent authorities to demarcate the land of the petitioner and the grievance was confined to the alleged inaction of the respondent authorities. 3.
As the demarcation has been carried out, notwithstanding the fact that it was unsuccessful, the prayer of the writ petitioner has since been answered and the writ petitioner is left to avail other remedies in accordance with law, if still aggrieved. 4. Writ petition accordingly stands closed and disposed of. Judge
Source: High Court of Meghalaya. Archive: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.