Dilip Kumar Sarma vs State Of Assam And 12 Ors

A.S. Bopanna, CJ

Heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for Respondents No.1, 3, 8, 9, 10 and 12; Ms. S. Chutia, learned counsel for Respondents No.4, 5 and 6; and Mr. G. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, AIDC, learned counsel for Respondent No.7.

The instant writ petition is filed in public interest seeking to assail the settlement made as also the proposal which is sought to be made through the communication dated 25.10.2018.

At the time of hearing of this petition, learned Standing Counsel, AIDC, representing Respondent No.7 would, at the outset, point out that the manner in which the petition has been filed would not be justified inasmuch as the land allotted to Respondent No.7 is also included in the communication dated 25.10.2018, but cannot form part of challenge in the manner in which it has been done in the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would clarify that the grievance as raised in the instant petition is relating to the extent of the land which is granted to the political party by way of settlement and, according to the petitioner, the same is not permissible.

If that be the position, the petitioner is required to restrict the pleadings and the prayer limiting only to the extent of land which is stated to be proposed to be settled in favour of a political party through the communication dated 25.10.2018 or in any other manner and only the necessary parties are to be arrayed as respondent.

Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to withdraw the instant petition and file an appropriate petition limiting the grievance and by pleading with regard to the same with clarity so as to enable an appropriate consideration herein.

Hence, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate petition.