IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
|
|
- Rosaline Thornton
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (KOHIMA BENCH) WRIT APPEAL NO.25(K)/2010 APPELLANTS 1. Naga United/Inavi Village, Represented by Mr. S. Khehoi, G.B., Naga Unitted/Inavi Village Council, District Peren, Nagaland 2. Mr. Kivito Nekha G.B., Naga United/Inavi Village, District Peren, Nagaland 3. Mr. Honito Yeptho, G.B., Baga United/Inavi Village, District Peren, Nagaland By advocate : Mr I Longjem VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. The State of Nagaland represented by the Chief Secretary to the Govt of Nagaland, Kohima, Nagaland 2. The Commissioner, Govt of Nagaland, Kohima, Nagaland 3. The Home Commissioner, Govt of Nagaland, Kohima, Nagaland 4. The Commissioner & Secretary, Department of Forest, Ecology, Environment & Wildlife, Govt of Nagaland, Kohima, Nagaland WA No.30(K)/10 Page 1 of 15
2 5. The Deputy Commissioner, District Peren, Nagaland 6. The Deputy Commissioner, District Dimapur, Nagaland 7. The Union of India, represented by the Secretary to the Govt of India, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi By advocates : Mr LS Jamir, Addl A.G. Ms Y Longkumer, G.A. Mr TB Jamir, CGSC APPELLANT Inavi Village represented by Hevito, Head Gaon Bura, S/o- Lt Khazevi, resident of Inavi/Hevito village, Dimapur, Nagaland WRIT APPEAL NO.30(K)/2010 By advocates : Mr P Khataniar Mr A Kukavi Zhimomi Mr Bodo VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. The State of Nagaland represented by the Chief Secretary to the Govt of Nagaland, Kohima, Nagaland 2. The Home Commissioner, Govt of Nagaland, Mohima, Nagaland 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, Nagaland WA No.30(K)/10 Page 2 of 15
3 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Peren, Nagaland 5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, (S.D.O.), Civil, Dhansiripar, Jalukie, Nagaland 6. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Nagaland 7. District Forest Officer (DFO), Peren, Nagaland 8. The Union of India 9. The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi 10.The Secretary, Govt of India, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi By advocates : Mr LS Jamir, Addl A.G. Ms Y Longkumer, G.A. Mr TB Jamir, CGSC BEFORE HON BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B. LOKUR HON BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. GOSWAMI Date of hearing : Date of judgment and order : JUDGMENT AND ORDER (MADAN B. LOKUR) The question for consideration is whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (for short the Forest Dwellers Act). Since we answer this question in the negative, the WA No.30(K)/10 Page 3 of 15
4 second question - whether the Forest Dwellers Act is applicable to the State of Nagaland in view of the provisions of Article 371A of the Constitution does not arise. 2. The appellants are the Inavi Village and the Naga United/Inavi Village. The residents of the Inavi Village and the Naga United/Inavi Village are hereinafter referred to as the Villagers. They challenge the judgment and order dated passed by a learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.217(K)/2009 and in WP(C) No.111(K)/ Late Mr. Inavi, originally a resident of Iphonumi village in the Pughoboto sub-division of Zunheboto District, seeing the plight of landless persons and also the availability of large tracts of vacant and unoccupied land near Intangki forest, decided to migrate over there with his followers and establish a village in the deforested area with the approval of the State Government. 4. At this stage, it may be stated that we have been told that the distance between Iphonumi village in Zunheboto District and the area where late Mr. Inavi and his followers decided to settle down is about 400 kms. It is also necessary to mention at this stage that the Intangki forest was declared a Reserve Forest by a notification issued on It was thereafter declared a Wild Life Sanctuary by a notification dated Eventually it was declared a National Park by a notification dated Late Mr. Inavi and his followers came to Intangki forest some time in 1987 when it was a National Park. 6. On or about , late Mr. Inavi submitted an application to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland for permission to WA No.30(K)/10 Page 4 of 15
5 establish a new village. The application was considered and late Mr. Inavi and his followers were allowed to settle down in the Hazatisa area of Intangki National Park by an order dated for developing the land for cultivation peacefully and without disturbing the rightful occupants. We have been told by learned counsel for the parties that the Hazatisa area is about 7/8 kms outside Intangki National Park and is not a part thereof. This is important because permission was not granted to late Mr. Inavi and his followers to settle down within Intangki National Park. 7. According to the Villagers they have settled down in the Hazatisa area of Intangki National Park and have been cultivating the land peacefully but were illegally evicted from the land by the Government of Nagaland as many as 27 times. 8. On the other hand, the stand of the State of Nagaland is that Inavi Village and Naga United/Inavi Village is not a recognized village under the provisions of the Nagaland Village Council Act. That apart, the Villagers have been encroaching into the Intangki National Park and it is for this reason that they have been forcibly evicted as many as 27 times but they keep coming back to encroach upon the Intangki National Park. 9. It is also the contention of the State that Beisumpuikam village was the original owner of the land covering Intangki National Park till it was donated to the Governor-in-Council in 1923 for declaration as a Reserve Forest. The villagers of Beisumpuikam village are, therefore, the actual owners of the Intangki National Park and have been donating acres and hectors of land, from time to time, for the use of the Intangki Reserve Forest, Intangki Wild Life Sanctuary and Intangki National Park. WA No.30(K)/10 Page 5 of 15
6 10. It is the submission of the State that Intangki National Park was free from encroachment but some time in 1984 some encroachment took place by the residents of Beisumpuikam village and this gave an occasion to the residents of other neighbouring areas (including the Villagers) to encroach into Intangki National Park. The State is doing its best to ensure that Intangki National Park remains free of all encroachments and the Villagers who have encroached into Intangki National Park deserve to be evicted, and eviction drives have been carried out from time to time. 11. On these broad facts, the Villagers filed writ petitions in this court contending that they were entitled to the benefit of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 in matters relating to the recognition and protection of their rights. It was prayed that therefore the State of Nagaland be prevented from carrying out any eviction of the Villagers and to compensate them for their illegal eviction from time to time which has resulted in destruction of their properties and means of livelihood. A direction was also sought against the State to enforce the provisions of Nagaland Land and Revenue (Amendment) Act, 1978 and to prevent illegal settlers into Intangki National Park from interfering with the rights of the Villagers. 12. Learned counsel for the parties before us admitted that Wild Life Sanctuary, which is now a National Park, is a great asset to the State of Nagaland and its character as such should be preserved and protected at all costs. 13. According to the Villagers since they belong to a Forest Dwelling Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Forest Dwellers Act, they are entitled to the protection thereof and are entitled to the various rights given to them under Chapter II of the Forest Dwellers Act. WA No.30(K)/10 Page 6 of 15
7 14. To better appreciate the controversy before us, it is necessary to give the Statement of Objects and Reasons for enacting the Forest Dwellers Act. The Statement of Objects and Reasons reads as follows:- Forest dwelling tribal people and forests are inseparable. One cannot survive without the other. The conservation of ecological resources by forest dwelling tribal communities have been referred to in ancient manuscripts and scriptures. The colonial rule somehow ignored this reality for greater economic gains and probably for good reasons prevalent at that time. After independence, in our enthusiasm to protect natural resources, we continued with colonial legislation and adopted more internationally accepted notions of conservation rather than learning from the rich traditions of the country where conservation is embedded I the ethos of tribal life. The reservation processes for creating wilderness and forest areas for production forestry somehow ignored the bona fide interests of the tribal community from legislative framework in the regions where tribal communities primarily inhabit. The simplicity of tribals and their general ignorance of modern regulatory frameworks precluded them from asserting their genuine claims to resources in areas where they belong and depended upon. The modern conservation approaches also advocate exclusion rather than integration. It is only recently that forest management regimes have initiated action to recognize the occupation and other rights of the forest dwellers and have in their policy processes realized that tribal communities who depend primarily on the forest resource cannot but be integrated in their designed management processes. There is a recognition of the fact that forests have the best chance to survive if communities participate in its conservation and regeneration measures. Insecurity to tenure and fear of eviction from these lands where they have lived and thrived for generations are perhaps the biggest reasons why tribal communities feel emotionally as well as physically alienated from forests and forest lands. This historical injustice now needs correction before it is too late to save our forests from becoming abode of undesirable elements. 2. It is, therefore, proposed to enact a law laying down a procedure for recognition and vesting of forest rights in forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes. This Bill is a logical culmination of the process of recognition of forest rights. The recognition of forest rights enjoyed by the forest WA No.30(K)/10 Page 7 of 15
8 dwelling Scheduled Tribes on all kinds of forest lands for generations which includes forest land for sustenance and usufructs from forest based resources is the fundamental basis on which the proposed legislation stands. 3. The Bill, inter alia, provides for the following matters, namely:- (i) it reinforces and utilizes the rich conservation ethos that tribal communities have traditionally shown and cautions against any form of unsustainable or destructive practices; (ii) it lays down a simple procedure for recognition and vesting of forest rights in the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes so that rights, which stand vested in forest dwelling tribal communities, become legally enforceable through corrective measures in the formal recording system of the executive machinery; (iii) it provides for adequate safeguards to avoid any further encroachment of forests and seeks to involve the democratic institutions at the grassroots level in the process of recognition and vesting of forest rights; (iv) it addresses the long standing and genuine felt need of granting a secure and inalienable right to those communities whose right to life depends on right to forests and thereby strengthening the entire conservation regime by giving a permanent stake to the Scheduled Tribes dwelling in the forests for generations in symbiotic relationship with the entire ecosystem. 4. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objects. 15. At this stage, it is necessary to place two facts on record: Firstly, even though the Forest Dwellers Act was passed in 2006, it came into force when it was published in the official gazette on Secondly, during the pendency of the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge, an order was passed on in WP(C) No.111(K)/2009 for carrying out a survey of the land occupied by the Villagers. 16. Pursuant to the directions of the learned Single Judge, a report was prepared by the Deputy Commissioner of Peren District, the WA No.30(K)/10 Page 8 of 15
9 Superintendent of Peren District, the Wild Life Warden of Dimapur, the Training Officer, Land Records and Survey of the Government of Nagaland and endorsed by several other persons including the Head Gaon Burah and Gaon Burah of Inavi Village representing the Villagers. It was noted that the encroachment by Inavi Village falls within the tourist zone of Intangki National Park. The tourist zone is inside the National Park and is an area where tourists are allowed for a visit only and to observe the habitat and fauna without disturbing the eco system and raising any other adverse impact on the park. No unauthorized activities, settlement, grazing is allowed in the tourist zone or in the core zone or the buffer zone of Intangki National Park. 17. As mentioned above, according to learned counsel for the Villagers, his clients are Forest Dwelling Scheduled Tribes as defined in Section 2(c) of the Forest Dwellers Act. Alternatively, it is submitted that they are Other Traditional Forest Dwellers as defined in Section 2(o) of the Forest Dwellers Act. For easy reference both these provisions are reproduced hereinbelow:- 2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, - (a) (b) (c) forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes means the members or community of the Scheduled Tribes who primarily reside in and who depend on the forests or forest lands for bona fide livelihood needs and includes the Scheduled Tribe pastoralist communities; (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (l) (m) (n) WA No.30(K)/10 Page 9 of 15
10 (o) other traditional forest dweller means any member or community who has for at least three generations prior to the 13 th day of December, 2005 primarily resided in and who depend on the forest or forests land for bona fide livelihood needs. Explanation For the purpose of this clause, generation means a period comprising of twenty-five years. 18. Learned Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the State of Nagaland submitted that the Villagers are not entitled to the benefit of the Forest Dwellers Act since they do not fall within the definitions given in Section 2(c) or Section 2(o) of the Forest Dwellers Act. It is also submitted that Inavi Village or Naga United/Inavi Village is not a recognized village while Beisumpuikam is a recognized village. In support of this, reliance has been placed on a notification dated issued by the Governor of Nagaland. The contents of the notification have not been disputed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Villagers. 19. As mentioned above, the principal question before us is whether the Villagers are entitled to the benefit of the Forest Dwellers Act or not. 20. A plain and simple reading of Section 2(c) of the Forest Dwellers Act clearly suggests that the Villagers cannot fall within the category of Forest Dwelling Scheduled Tribes. The Villagers first came to Hazatisa near Intangki National Park as recently as in 1987 from their place of ordinary residence at a distance of about 400 kms. What prompted them to come to Intangki National Park is of no consequence. But it cannot reasonably be stated, by any stretch of imagination that they primarily reside in or depend on the forest or the forest land of Intangki National Park. WA No.30(K)/10 Page 10 of 15
11 21. The Forest Dwellers Act recognizes and vests various rights on persons who are bona fide forest dwellers. The Villagers cannot reasonably be described as bona fide residents of Intangki National Park. They are only encroachers therein. They were entitled to reside, if at all, only in Hazatisa area which is about 7/8 kms away from Intangki National Park. They were not permitted or entitled to expand their possession and occupation to areas close to Intangki National Park and certainly not in areas within Intangki National Park. Under the circumstances, it is not possible to accept the contention of learned counsel for the Villagers that they primarily reside in and depend on the forests or forest lands for their bona fide livelihood needs, so as to come within the definition of Forest Dwelling Scheduled Tribes. 22. This being the position and in view of the encroachments by the Villagers, the Government of Nagaland had no option but to resort to evicting them from Intangki National Park on as many as 27 occasions. But they were determined to settle in Intangki National Park and despite repeated evictions, they keep coming back to firm up their encroachment within the Intangki National Park. Surely, this is not permissible. 23. It is admitted on all hands that Intangki National Park is an asset which belongs to the entire State of Nagaland and the Villagers are no exception. On the contrary, they would be wise to cooperate with the Government of Nagaland to preserve that asset, rather than to destroy it through uncontrolled encroachment and also destroy the flora and fauna of the area. 24. Learned counsel for the Villagers then submitted that if his clients cannot come within the definition of Forest Dwelling Scheduled Tribes they would certainly come within the definition of other traditional forest dwellers as defined under Section 2(o) of the Forest Dwellers Act. This argument is merely stated to be rejected. WA No.30(K)/10 Page 11 of 15
12 25. To come within the definition of other traditional forest dwellers the Villagers should have, for at least three generations prior to 13 th December, 2005 primarily resided in or depended on the forest land of Intangki National Park for their bona fide livelihood needs. The explanation to Section 2(o) of the Forest Dwellers Act defines generation to mean a period of 25 years. It is nobody s case that the Villagers have been bona fide residents for three generations in Intangki National Park. In fact if their presence in Hazatisa is taken from 1987, not even one generation has gone by. Under no circumstances, therefore, can the Villagers claim the benefit of the definition of other traditional forest dwellers as defined under Section 2(o) of the Forest Dwellers Act. 26. Whichever way we look at the problem, there is no doubt that the Villagers are rank encroachers in Intangki Wild Life Sanctuary and Intangki National Park and the State of Nagaland is fully entitled to evict them therefrom and to ensure that they do not continue with their encroachment in the Intangki Wild Life Sanctuary or the Intangki National Park. 27. Learned counsel for the Villagers placed reliance on Mohd. Noor & Ors v. Mohd. Ibrahim & Ors (1994) 5 SCC 562 in support of his contention that a person can be the owner of a thing only if he has absolute domain over it in all respects and is capable of transferring such ownership. The reason for advancing this contention is that according to learned counsel, the Villagers had no ownership rights over the land under their control and possession in the Intangki National Park and, therefore, it was not necessary for the State Legislature to adopt the Forest Dwellers Act since it was not covered by the provisions of Article 371-A (a) (iv) of the Constitution. We do not see the relevance of this decision insofar as the present case is concerned but even if the decision is relevant, since we are of the WA No.30(K)/10 Page 12 of 15
13 opinion that the Villagers cannot claim the benefit of the Forest Dwellers Act, the question of its applicability to the State of Nagaland does not arise. 28. Reliance was also placed by learned counsel on State Bank s Staff Union (Madras Circle) v. Union of India & Ors, (2005) 7 SCC 584 in support of his contention that the Objects and Reasons of a statute are to be looked into as an extrinsic aid to find out the legislative intent only when the meaning of the statute by its ordinary language is obscure or ambiguous. If the words in a statute are clear and unambiguous then the statute itself makes clear the intention of the Legislature and in such a case it would not be permissible for a Court to interpret the statute by examining its Objects and Reasons. 29. There can be no quarrel with the proposition canvassed by learned counsel. However, we wish to make it clear that in our opinion the plain and ordinary language of the Forest Dwellers Act is quite lucid - the Villagers cannot get the benefit of the Forest Dwellers Act whichever way one looks at their contentions. We have made a reference to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Forest Dwellers Act only to highlight the occasion for enacting the Forest Dwellers Act and not for the purposes of understanding its provisions which, as we have already mentioned above, are quite clear and unambiguous. 30. Finally learned counsel for the Villagers relied upon Lalappa Lingappa & Ors v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd, (19081) 2 SCC 238 to contend that in considering a social welfare legislation the Court should adopt the beneficial rule of construction. If a section is capable of two constructions, that construction should be preferred which fulfills the policy of the Forest Dwellers Act and is more beneficial to the persons in whose interest it has been passed. WA No.30(K)/10 Page 13 of 15
14 31. Insofar as the Forest Dwellers Act is concerned, as we have already noted, the various provisions thereof are not capable of having two meanings. The language of the various provisions is clear and unambiguous and as held by the Supreme Court in the cited judgment when the language is explicit it must be given effect to whatever be the consequences, for the words of the statute speak the intention of the Legislature. We do not see how this decision helps the Villagers. 32. Learned Advocate-General relied upon a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India and others, (IA Nos. 276 with IA Nos. 413, 437, 453 and 454 decided on 29/10/2002) in support of his contention that since the Villagers are destroying Intangki National Park or the Wild Life Sanctuary through their encroachment and are depriving Nagaland of a valuable asset, merely dismissing their writ appeal would not be enough. He submitted that the Villagers have admittedly been evicted 27 times, but they keep coming back. Therefore, the equivalent of the polluter must pay principle must be applied to the facts of the case. 33. We are in agreement with the learned Advocate-General. In the cited decision, the Central Empowered Committee had recommended the payment of compensation for encroachment of land for commercial purposes at ` 5 lakhs per hectare. In the present case, the encroachment is not for commercial purposes, but the encroachment is on an admitted asset of the State of Nagaland. We place these on an equal footing and direct that if the Villagers voluntarily vacate the Intangki National Park and peacefully hand over the land in their possession and occupation to the State Government within three months from today and in any case on or before 31 st December, 2011 they will not be liable to pay any compensation. However, if they continue to remain in occupation, then they will have to pay ` 5 lakhs per hectare per month to the State of Nagaland. The amount will be recovered from Mr. S. Khchoi, Mr. Kivito Nekha and Mr. Honito Yeptho (the appellants in Writ Appeal WA No.30(K)/10 Page 14 of 15
15 No. 25(K) of 2010) and from Mr. Hevito, son of Late Khazevi (the appellant in Writ Appeal No.30(K) of 2010). The amounts recovered shall be kept in a separate account and shall be used by the State Government exclusively for forest protection and rehabilitation of the encroached area. 34. Both the writ appeals are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. All pending Misc Cases also stand disposed of. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Mazumdar/ WA No.30(K)/10 Page 15 of 15
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT KOHIMA BENCH
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH W.P (C) No. 232 (K) of 2015 1. Shri Ailong Phom, Forest Ranger, Office of the Range Forest Officer,
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH 1. Mr. N. Asangba, Presently serving as Surveyor Grade-II, PHE Central Store, under the establishment
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) 1. The Director General, Boarder Roads Organisation, Seema Sadak Bhavan, Ring Road,
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM; NAGALAND; MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Petitioners : WP(C) No.3049 of 2006 1. M/s. Bogidhola Tea and Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office
More informationTHE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh) WP(C) Nos. 835/2009 and 2465/2009
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh) WP(C) Nos. 835/2009 and 2465/2009 (I) WP(C) No.835/2009 Smt. Lakhimi Hazarika, W/O Shri
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP (C) No of 2015
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP (C) No. 2842 of 2015 Md. Sahid Ali, S/o. Late Akbar Ali, R/o. Village- nmerapani Fareshtablak, P.S.- Merapani,
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT ( THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH ) WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 2973/2006 Sri Ajit Kumar Kakoti Lecturer, Son of Late Padmadhar Kakoti, Assam Textile
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) Small Industries Development Bank of India ( SIDBI)
Review Petition No. 73/2013 (Arising out of Misc. Case No. 705/2013 In FAO 6/2013) IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) Small Industries Development
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) NO(S). 11 OF Versus
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION REPORTABLE TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) NO(S). 11 OF 2017 LT. CDR. M. RAMESH...PETITIONER(S) Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) (WITH I.A.
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT ( THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH ) WP(C) No of Versus-
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT ( THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH ) WP(C) No. 5648 of 2009 Sri Swapan Kumar Dey S/o late Jogesh Chandra Dey, R/o Nagadolong, P.O. & P.S. Namrup,
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Writ Petition (C) No.8368 of 2003 1. Smti. Lilawati Neog Wife of Sri Roma Neog, 2.
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Page 1 of 15 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C) NO.4448/2007 1. Sri Abhiram Pegu, S/o Damodar Pegu, R/O- Nalipipar, P.O & P.S- Dhemaji, District-
More information1. WRIT PETITION (C) NO.75 OF 2017
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) 1. WRIT PETITION (C) NO.75 OF 2017 Md. Sirajul Islam, Son of Late Ayub Ali, Resident of Pub Singimari, PO: Singimari,
More informationW.P. (C) No. 45 of 2013
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) A I Z A W L B E N C H :: A I Z A W L W.P. (C) No. 45 of 2013 Sh. J. Vanlalchhuanga, S/o Ralkapliana R/o Ramhlun,
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C) 1140/2015 & WP(C) 2945/2015. Sri Vidyut Bikash Bora
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C) 1140/2015 & WP(C) 2945/2015 Sri Vidyut Bikash Bora -Vs-...Petitioner M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
More informationTHE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM: NAGALAND: MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
1 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM: NAGALAND: MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Sri Rajesh Jaiswal, S/o Sri Radha Raman Jaiswal, Resident of Thana Back Road, Ward No. 11, New Amolapatty, Golaghat-785621.
More information1. Writ Petition (C) No.3638 of 2015
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) 1. Writ Petition (C) No.3638 of 2015 1. Bahari Reserve Gaon Min Samabai Samity Limited, Village & PO- Bahari, PS-
More informationPRADEEP KUMAR MASKARA & ORS. Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
PRADEEP KUMAR MASKARA & ORS. Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NOS.9844-9846 OF 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) CRP NO.6 OF 2017
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) CRP NO.6 OF 2017 1. SMTI. TETERI DEVI, Wife of Late Mohendra Harizon. 2. SHRI RAMANANDA HARIZON, Son of Late Mohendra
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION I.A. NO. OF 2005 I.A. NO.548 OF 2000 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION I.A. NO. OF 2005 IN I.A. NO.548 OF 2000 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.202 OF 1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD PETITIONER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND
More informationTHE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM: NAGALAND: MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Writ Petition (C) No. 946 OF 2009
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM: NAGALAND: MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Writ Petition (C) No. 946 OF 2009 1. SRI PRAMOD KUMAR KEDIA, S/O. LATE BISWANATH KEDIA. 2. SRI SMTI. NIMAWATI KEDIA,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION. CM No of 2005 in W.P. (C) No of 1987
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION CM No. 15134 of 2005 in W.P. (C) No. 1043 of 1987 Orders reserved on : 26th July, 2006 Date of Decision : 7th August, 2006 LATE BAWA HARBANS
More informationW.P.(C) No.5740 of 2001 P R E S E N T HON BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI
BY COURT: 1 W.P.(C) No.5740 of 2001 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 226 of the Constitution of India) Parmanand Pandey & Anr.. Petitioners. Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors.....
More informationCont.Cas(C). No. 18of 2013
Cont.Cas(C). No. 18of 2013 HON BLE THE, Shri H.S.Thangkhiew, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Shri N.Mozika, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Smti. T.Yangi, Advocate, present for the respondents. Learned
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM; NAGALAND; MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Page 1 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM; NAGALAND; MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Writ Petition (C) No. 1961 of 2010 Smt. Padma Rani Mudai Hazarika - Versus - - Petitioner Union of India
More informationBEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI M.A. No. 890/2013, M.A. No. 904/2013, 906/2013, M.A. No. 910/2013, M.A. No. 912/2013, M.A. No. 914/2013, M.A. No. 917/2013, M.A. No. 919/2013,
More informationTHE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh) RSA No.
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh) RSA No. 149/2000 1. Musstt. Sufia Khatun, W/O Late Danish Ali. 2. Md. Mintu Sheikh alias
More informationW.P.(C) No. 61 of 2013
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) AIZAWL BENCH: AIZAWL W.P.(C) No. 61 of 2013 1. Dawrpui Vengthar Pig Producer Co-operative Society Ltd., B-2
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
1 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM, AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C) No. 357 of 2016 Lakhi Rani Das, Wife of Late Subhash Das, R/o village- Salpara, Molandubi, P.S.- Krishnai,
More informationTHE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM: NAGALAND: MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
1 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM: NAGALAND: MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C) No. 4022/2016 Sri David Brahma Son of Sri Biraj Brahma Resident of Kahilipara Journalist Colony Dakhin
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT, 1954 Date of Reserve : Date of Decision :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT, 1954 Date of Reserve : 14.02.2013 Date of Decision : 28.05.2013 LPA 858/2004 BANWARI LAL SHARMA Through: Mr. P.S. Bindra, Advocate....
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) W.P(C) 2085/2004
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) W.P(C) 2085/2004 Sri Amarendra Kumar Singh Son of Sri M.M.P. Singh Technical Assistant,
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND,MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C) No. 157(AP) of 2012 M/S JORAM MPCS LTD. - Vs... Petitioner STATE OF ARUNACHAL
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL Nos OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) Nos.
1 Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 691-693 OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) Nos. 21462-64 OF 2013) State of Tripura & Ors..Appellants Versus
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP (C) No of 2013
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP (C) No. 5343 of 2013 Muncher Ali, S/o. Latee Hussain Ali @ Hussain @ Hussain Miya @ Hussain Ali Miya, Viollage-
More informationCriminal Revn No. 4(SH) of 2009.
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) SHILLONG BENCH Criminal Revn No. 4(SH) of 2009. Shri Sushil Kumar Gupta S/o (L) JS
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT: SUIT FOR POSSESSION Reserved on: 17th July, 2012 Pronounced on 3rd August, 2012 W.P. (C) No.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT: SUIT FOR POSSESSION Reserved on: 17th July, 2012 Pronounced on 3rd August, 2012 W.P. (C) No.865/2000 DIVINE UNITED ORGANISATION Petitioner Through: Mr.
More informationGOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND GEOLOGY & MINING DEPARTMENT. NOTIFICATION Dated Kohima the 7 th December 2012
GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND GEOLOGY & MINING DEPARTMENT NOTIFICATION Dated Kohima the 7 th December 2012 No:GM 3/ONGC 35/2009:: In exercise of the powers conferred upon it by Regulation No. 24 of the Nagaland
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP (C) NO. 2017/2009 Sri Swapan Kr. Biswas S/o Late Anil Kr. Biswas, Vill- Basugaon P.O. Basugaon, Dist. Chirang,
More informationWP(C) No.810/2015 BEFORE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
14.05.2015 WP(C) No.810/2015 BEFORE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN Heard Mr. SK Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P Roy, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam assisted by Ms. B Hazarika,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: FAO (OS) 298/2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: 17.01.2013 FAO (OS) 298/2010 SHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABHANDHAK COMMITTEE AND ANR... Appellants Through Mr. H.S.
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C) No. 242/2011 - Versus 1. Md. Anwar Ali, Son of Late Musabbir Ali, Resident
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WRIT APPEAL NO.
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WRIT APPEAL NO.278/2010 APPELLANT Md Aminul Haque Son of Late Samir Uddin Resident
More informationTHE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: M/S MITSUBISHI CORPORATION INDIA P. LTD Petitioner.
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 30.07.2010 + WP (C) 11932/2009 M/S MITSUBISHI CORPORATION INDIA P. LTD Petitioner - versus THE VALUE ADDED TAX OFFICER & ANR... Respondent
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI (EXTRAORDINARY WRIT JURISDICTION) WP(C) No.2171 of 2017 Moizuddin Ahmed.. Petitioner
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. W.P.(C) No.8693/2014. George. Versus. Advs. for UOI. HON BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 27th November, 2015 W.P.(C) No.8693/2014 HENNA GEORGE... Petitioner Through: Ms. Purti Marwaha, C.S. Chauhan, Mr. Arvind Kumar & Ms. Henna George.
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C) No.
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) -Vs- WP(C) No. 1846/2010 Sri Ram Prakash Sarki, Constable (Since dismissed from
More informationTHE CENTRAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS (RESERVATION IN ADMISSION) AMENDMENT BILL, 2010
AS INTRODUCED IN THE RAJYA SABHA Bill No. XLIII of 2010 5 of 2007. 5 10 THE CENTRAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS (RESERVATION IN ADMISSION) AMENDMENT BILL, 2010 A BILL to amend the Central Educational Institutions
More informationTHE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI WP(C) No. 4088/2014 Sri Dibyajyoti Kaushik, Son of Sri Santanu Baruaha,
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh)
Page 1 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) Writ Appeal No. 273/2014 Md. Imranul Hoque, S/o Shamsul Hoque, Village- Kacharipara, District Nagaon,
More informationJUDGEMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) RFA 08/2013 1. Manoj Lala, son of Late Mohanlal Lala, R/o. Central Road, Silchar, PO & PS- Silcahr, District-
More informationTHE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) W.P(C) 4494/2004 NLK-204 Anuj Sonowal Son of Late Jadunath Sonowal C/o Sri Ratul Das, Vill-Khajuabeel,
More informationSub: Serious livelihoods deprivation due to erroneous MoEF interpretation of Supreme Court circulars
Shri Jairam Ramesh Minister of State for Environment and Forests New Delhi 7 July 2009 Sub: Serious livelihoods deprivation due to erroneous MoEF interpretation of Supreme Court circulars Dear Shri Ramesh,
More informationWrit Petition (C) No.1208 of 2011
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Writ Petition (C) No.1208 of 2011 Md. Muktar Hussain, Son of Md. Rajab Ali, Resident
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Writ Petition No of 2016
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Writ Petition No. 1246 of 2016 Shri Abdul Kadir Mazumdar, Son of late Basir Uddin Mazumdar, Village Uttar Krishnapur,
More informationAS INTRODUCED IN LOK SABHA
1 AS INTRODUCED IN LOK SABHA 5 Bill No. 197 of 2015 THE SIXTH SCHEDULE TO THE CONSTITUTION (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2015 By SHRI VINCENT H. PALA, M.P. A BILL further to amend the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI (EXTRAORDINARY WRIT JURISDICTION) WP(C) No.2855 of 2010 Ramesh Goswami Writ Petitioner
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 171 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA REPORTABLE CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 171 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.10681/2015) THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Petitioner : WP(C) NO.992 OF 2014 1. Sri Bijit Saikia, S/o Sri Tilak Saikia, R/o Deodia-Ati, P.O.-Bengena Ati
More informationWhat is it and where?
c.r.bijoy What is it and where? Consists of (i) core or critical tiger habitat areas of National Parks and Sanctuaries to be kept as inviolate and [Sec.38V(i)] (ii) buffer or peripheral area consisting
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Co. Pet. 8/2015
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Co. Pet. 8/2015 Madhusudan Mandal, Residing at 35E Mahanirban Road, Ground Floor, Post Office- Gariahat, Kolkata-700029,
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR,
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP (C) No. 3522/2000 1. Dhansiri Valley Project Oil and Natural Gas Commission
More informationTHE CONSTITUTION (SEVENTY-THIRD AMENDMENT) ACT, 1992
1 of 15 7/27/2010 4:32 PM THE CONSTITUTION (SEVENTY-THIRD AMENDMENT) ACT, 1992 Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Constitution (Seventy-second Amendment) Bill, 1991 which was enacted as the
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Sections 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Ordinance (II) 2002 W.P.(C) 191/2008
More information$~39 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: Versus
$~39 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 11.08.2015 + W.P.(C) 2293/2015 SHANTI INDIA (P) LTD.... Petitioner Versus LT. GOVERNOR AND ORS.... Respondents Advocates who appeared
More informationThrough : Mr. A.K.Singla, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Pankaj Gupta and Ms.Promila K.Dhar Advocates. Versus
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : PROVIDENT FUND MATTER Writ Petition (C) Nos.670, 671 & 672/2007 Reserved on : 01.02.2007 Date of decision : 09.02.2007 IN THE MATTER OF : PRUDENTIAL SPINNERS
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT. Case No: WP(C) 3845/2014
1 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) Case No: WP(C) 3845/2014 Dr. (Capt.) Suchitra Kakoty, W/o Sri Lekhoke Kakoty, R/o House No. 18, Bye Lane No.1,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
http://judis.nic.in SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5 CASE NO.: Writ Petition (civil) 4677 of 1985 PETITIONER: M.C. Mehta RESPONDENT: Union of India & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/04/2006 BENCH: Y.K. Sabharwal
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
1 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Writ Appeal No.201 of 2011. Appellant : Sri Dharma Oja alias Dharma Kanta Oja,
More informationMinistry of Environment and Forests. NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 03 rd February, 2004
Ministry of Environment and Forests NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 03 rd February, 2004 G.S.R. 94 (E) In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Forest (Conservation) Act,
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C) No. 2882/2005 M/s. Ladi Steel Industries Pvt. Limited, a private limited company duly incorporated under
More information1. The State of Assam, represented by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6.
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 4717/2007. 1. Md. Alauddin Mondal, Son of Late Hazrat Ali Mondal, A resident of village-kaimari
More information[DR.ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.K. THAKKER AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]
[2008] 8 S.C.R. 828 M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. I.A. No. 1901 in I.A. No. 1888 in (W.P.(c) No. 4677 Of 1985) MAY 14, 2008 [DR.ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.K. THAKKER AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] The Judgment
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.8700 OF Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association W I T H
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.8700 OF 2013 Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association..Appellant Versus State of Tamil Nadu & Ors...Respondents W
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM; NAGALAND; MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) I.A. (Civil) 82/2016 In MAC APP SL. NO. 272049, I.A. (C) /2016, CAVT. 410/2016 Cholamandalam MS General Insurance
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
1 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM, AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C) No.7347/2016 Jehirul Islam, Son of Md. Abdul Jalil @ Jalil Ali, Resident of village- Dimu, P.S.- Rangia,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Delhi Land Revenue Act REVIEW PETITIONS 205, 209/2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Delhi Land Revenue Act REVIEW PETITIONS 205, 209/2007 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 3361 of 2007 and CM Nos. 8175/07, 8081/07, 8082/07, 13297/07 Reserved
More information* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1089/2013 & CM No.2073/2013. Versus
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1089/2013 & CM No.2073/2013 SETU NIKET Versus Pronounced on: 19.11.2015... Petitioner Through: Ms. Esha Mazumdar, Adv. UNION OF INDIA & ORS... Respondents
More informationTHE COMPENSATORY AFFORESTATION FUND BILL, 2016
AS PASSED BY LOK SABHA ON 03 MAY, 16 Bill No. 3-C of CLAUSES THE COMPENSATORY AFFORESTATION FUND BILL, 16 ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY 1. Short title, extent and commencement. 2. Definitions.
More informationBar & Bench ( IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10577 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 16836 of 2018) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST VERSUS APPELLANT(S)
More information$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus. % Date of Decision: 9 th February, J U D G M E N T
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI #37 + W.P.(C) 9340/2015 D.K. BHANDARI Through... Petitioner Mr. Rakesh Malviya with Mr. Karanveer Choudhary and Mr. Saurabh, Advocates versus GOVT. OF NCT OF
More informationSUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8 PETITIONER: NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
http://judis.nic.in SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8 PETITIONER: NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH & ANR DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/01/1996 BENCH: AHMADI A.M. (CJ)
More informationTHE WAQF PROPERTIES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS), BILL, 2014
1 AS INTRODUCED IN THE RAJYA SABHA Bill No. VIII of 14 36 of 19. 24 of 198. THE WAQF PROPERTIES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS), BILL, 14 A BILL to provide for the eviction of unauthorised occupants
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C) 2098 of 2013
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C) 2098 of 2013 1. Mustt. Khatoon Nessa, W/o. Md. Samsul Hoque, D/o. Lt. Uttam Ali. 2. Md. Samsul Hoque,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL Nos OF 2019 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Nos OF 2015
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1269-1270 OF 2019 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Nos. 21402-21403 OF 2015 PYARELAL... APPELLANT Versus SHUBHENDRA
More informationTHE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM: NAGALAND: MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Writ Petition (C) No OF 2010
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM: NAGALAND: MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Writ Petition (C) No. 4667 OF 2010 SHRI SURAJEET DAS, SON OF SHRI CHITTA RANJAN DAS, RESIDENT OF PANJABARI (BOTAHGULI),
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : COFEPOSA. Writ Petition (Criminal) No.1484 of Judgment reserved on: November 20, 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : COFEPOSA Writ Petition (Criminal) No.1484 of 2006 Judgment reserved on: November 20, 2006 Judgment delivered on: December 01, 2006 Suman Aggarwal W/o Shri
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT, 1954 RSA No. 252/2013 DATE OF DECISION : 15th January,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT, 1954 RSA No. 252/2013 DATE OF DECISION : 15th January, 2014 SURESH BALA & ORS Through: Mr. B.S.Mann, Advocate....Appellants VERSUS
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 9921-9923 OF 2016 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s).10163-10165 of 2015) GOVT. OF BIHAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC. Appellant(s)
More informationWP(C) No.4529 of 2016 B E F O R E HON BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
WP(C) No.4529 of 2016 B E F O R E HON BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM 20.01.2017 Heard S. K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 10583-10585 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO(S). 36057-36059 OF 2016] MUNJA PRAVEEN & ORS. ETC. ETC....
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI (CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION) CRP No. 380 of 2014 M/S Shriram Transport Finance
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C) 1576 of 2013
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C) 1576 of 2013 1. Sri Krishna Deb Nath, S/o. Late Ramani Deb 2. Smti. Maloti Deb Nath,W/o. Sri Krishna Deb
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: W.P.(C) 5568/2017 & CM No /2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 18.09.2017 + W.P.(C) 5568/2017 & CM No. 23379/2017 M/S EPSILON PUBLISHING HOUSE PVT LTD... Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS... Respondents
More informationWRIT PETITION (C) NO. 233O OF 2006
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM; NAGALAND;MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 233O OF 2006 Sri Kajal Kumar Paul, Son of Late Rajkukar Paul, Resident of Santipara, Saratpalli,
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT. Writ Petition (C) No.606 of 2016
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Writ Petition (C) No.606 of 2016 Sri Bhabesh Das Son of Late Dhruba Das Vill Kulhati, No.2 Hidalghurisupa Police
More informationTHE SCHEDULED TRIBES AND OTHER TRADITIONAL FOREST DWELLERS (RECOGNITION OF FOREST RIGHTS) BILL, 2006
AS PASSED BY LOK SABHA ON 15TH DECEMBER, 2006 THE SCHEDULED TRIBES AND OTHER TRADITIONAL FOREST DWELLERS (RECOGNITION OF FOREST RIGHTS) BILL, 2006 A BILL Bill No. 158-C of 2005 to recognise vest rights
More informationWildlife Protection (Amendment) Act, 2006
Wildlife Protection (Amendment) Act, 2006 This document is available at ielrc.org/content/e0619.pdf For further information, visit www.ielrc.org Note: This document is put online by the International Environmental
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF. (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) W.P. (C) No.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) W.P. (C) No. 1343/2012 Shri Sanjib Saikia, S/o. Late Muhiram Saikia R/o. House No. 12,
More informationGOVERNMENT OF INDIA (MINISTRY OF TRIBAL AFFAIRS) LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO TO BE ANSWERED ON FOREST RIGHT TITLES
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (MINISTRY OF TRIBAL AFFAIRS) LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 3666 TO BE ANSWERED ON 08.08.2016 FOREST RIGHT TITLES 3666. SHRI DINESH TRIVEDI: SHRI BALABHADRA MAJHI: SHRI KANTI LAL
More information