Nominal Index [Citations 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 113 - 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 152]

SHRI ASEM KANAN SINGH v/s THE UNION OF INDIA 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 113

Smt. Shibani Dutta v State of Assam 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 114

Md. Kapiluddin Laskar & 2 Ors. v. The State of Assam & 2 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 115

Kayin Ering and 4 Ors v/s The State of AP and 15 Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 116

Protima Dutta Kalita v. Smti Rina Borgohain 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 117

The State of Assam v. Rintu Sarmah 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 118

B v. State of Assam & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 119

Partha Sarathi Shill v. Union of India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 120

R v. The State of Mizoram r/b Secretary to Govt. of Mizoram, Home Dept. and Anr. Aizawl 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 121

Hyder Hussain & Anr. v. Dhrubajyoti Rava 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 122

L v. The State of Mizoram 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 123

Tutumoni Deva Goswami and Ors. v State of Assam and Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 124

Miss Maning Baki and Anr v. The State of AP 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 125

Shri Kamin Taloh & Anr. v. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 126

Kabak Bhatt v. Ms Biki Shapiong 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 127

Uttam Das v The Union of India and Others 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 128

Ms Mary Megu v. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 129

Smt Putul Deka & Ors. v. Sri Kamal Rajbongshi & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 130

Satyabrata Dey v. State of Assam & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 131

The State of Assam and 4 Ors. v. Chandreswar Saikia and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 132

Sudhang Kumar Brahma v. The Bodoland Territorial Council and 3 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 133

Aminul Sikdar @ Md. Animul Sikdar v. State of Assam & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 134

Rafique Uddin Sekh @ Rafique Uddin v. Saina Begum Sheik 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 135

Hemanta Bordoloi v. Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 136

Punam Kashyap Sarmah & Anr. v. Smt. Karabika Kashyap Sarma 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 137

The State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Smti. Rejina Sonowal & 3 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 138

BABUL BAISHYA v. STATE OF ASSAM 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 139

Hasena Bewa and 10 Ors v. State of Assam and 8 Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 140

Bikalanga Kalyan Kendra v. Union of India & 5 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 141

Nand Kishore Mundhra v. State of Assam and Others 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 142

Hobiqul Islam v. State of Assam With Nijut Bormoholia v. State of Assam 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 143

Kimi Sarda v. Krishna Sharma & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 144

Faizur Rahman Laskar v. State of Assam & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 145

On the Death of Nur Mohammad All His Legal Heirs & Ors. v. Legal Heirs of Late Tarubala Saha & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 147

On the Death of Indrasan Prasad Choudhury, His Legal Heirs Represented by Kalawati Devi & Ors. v. State of Assam & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 148

Dr. Maushumi Barooah v. State of Assam & 4 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 149

Nilima Baishya & Anr. v. State of Assam & Ors. Devi & Ors. v. State of Assam & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 150

United Drilling Tools Limited v. Oil India Limited & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 151

Alok Sarkar v. State of Assam & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 152

Can CBI Re-Arrest Accused Granted Bail On Technical Grounds Without First Obtaining Bail Cancellation Order? Gauhati High Court Answers

Case title: SHRI ASEM KANAN SINGH v/s THE UNION OF INDIA

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 113

The Gauhati High Court has held that an investigating agency can re-arrest an accused who was granted bail on procedural technicalities rather than on merits, without first obtaining an order cancelling the bail.

Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma dismissed a criminal petition challenging a Special Judge's order issuing a production warrant and permitting the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to re-arrest the petitioner in a corruption case, rejecting the contention that such re-arrest needed a prior bail cancellation order.

Nominating Another Woman As 'Wife' In Records Can't Override Legally Wedded Wife's Right To Family Pension: Gauhati High Court

Case: Smt. Shibani Dutta v State of Assam

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 114

The Gauhati High Court has held that a legally wedded wife of a deceased government employee cannot be denied family pension merely because the employee had nominated another woman as his “wife” in the pension records.

A Single Bench of Justice Kaushik Goswami was hearing a writ petition filed by Shibani Dutta, whose husband, late Sankar Dutta, a retired government employee, had nominated another woman, Gayatri Dutta, as his "wife" for the purpose of family pension and gratuity while submitting his pension papers.

No Fundamental Right To Gun License; Employment Need Doesn't Entitle Person To Renewal: Gauhati High Court

Case Title: Md. Kapiluddin Laskar & 2 Ors. v. The State of Assam & 2 Ors.

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 115

The Gauhati High Court has held that there is no fundamental right to obtain or renew a gun license, observing that a license under the Arms Act, 1959 is only a statutory privilege.

A single judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi made the observation while dismissing a plea by three persons who claimed that expiry of their gun licenses had rendered them jobless as the licenses were required for their employment.

The petitioners contended that they were previously employed in private companies in Nagaland and other places outside Assam and that the expiry of their gun licenses had rendered them jobless.

Gauhati High Court Upholds Amendment To Arunachal Pradesh Police Rules Aimed At 'Equitable Distribution' Of Promotion Opportunities

Case title: Kayin Ering and 4 Ors v/s The State of AP and 15 Ors

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 116

Upholding the constitutional validity of Rule 5(1)(b) of Arunachal Pradesh Police Service (Amendment) Rules 2025, the Gauhati High Court held that allocating promotional quota to Arunachal Pradesh Police Service (Entry Grade) based on sanctioned strength of Inspectors in three feeder cadres does not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The Rules fix the promotional quota for the three feeder cadres — Civil Police, India Reserve Battalion (IRBn), and the Arunachal Armed Police Battalion (AAPBn) — at 79.39%, 15.35% and 5.26% respectively, based on the present sanctioned strength of Inspectors in each unit.

'Advice' To Pay Cheque Amount Is Legally A Demand If Notice Clearly Seeks Payment: Gauhati High Court

Case Title: Protima Dutta Kalita v. Smti Rina Borgohain

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 117

The Gauhati High Court has held that a statutory notice issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 need not expressly use the word "demand" to satisfy the legal requirement. A notice advising or requesting the drawer to pay the cheque amount would be sufficient if, read as a whole, it clearly conveys the requirement to make payment.

Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma made the observation while dismissing a criminal revision petition challenging the petitioner's conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act.

Brutality Of Crime Alone Can't Justify Death Penalty: Gauhati High Court

Case Title: The State of Assam v. Rintu Sarmah

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 118

The Gauhati High Court has held that brutality of a crime alone cannot justify confirmation of a death sentence and that capital sentencing must also consider whether the accused is capable of reformation before holding that life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury observed, "...the sentencing must be both crime-centric and criminal-centric rather than merely a reaction to the brutality of the act … The brutality of the crime, by itself, cannot conclude the sentencing exercise."

Two-Finger Test Violates Rape Survivors' Privacy, Dignity And Physical & Mental Integrity: Gauhati High Court

Case Title: B v. State of Assam & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 119

The Gauhati High Court has upheld the conviction and 20-year sentence imposed on a man under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act for repeatedly raping his adopted daughter, while expressing surprise that a doctor conducted a two-finger test on the survivor despite Supreme Court decisions on the issue.

Courts Can Interfere With Expert Answer Key If It Is 'Palpably Erroneous'; Candidate Can't Be Penalised For Ambiguous Question: Gauhati High Court

Case Title: Partha Sarathi Shill v. Union of India & Ors.

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 120

The Gauhati High Court has held that judicial review is permissible where an answer key prepared by experts is shown, on the basis of authoritative and indisputable material, to be palpably erroneous, and that a candidate cannot be penalised for ambiguity in a question framed by the examining authority.

Justice Kaushik Goswami observed, "However, such deference is not absolute. Where it is demonstrated on the basis of authoritative and indisputable material that the answer key is palpably erroneous, and that no reasonable person possessing expertise in the subject would regard the prescribed answer as correct, judicial review would not be excluded. Equally well settled is the principle that an answer in an objective examination ought not to be declared incorrect by resorting to inferential reasoning or rationalisation. Interference is justified only where the error is manifest and admits of no reasonable controversy."

Mental Disability Alone Doesn't Establish Woman's Incapacity To Give Valid Consent: Gauhati High Court Sets Aside Rape Conviction

Case Name: R v. The State of Mizoram r/b Secretary to Govt. of Mizoram, Home Dept. and Anr. Aizawl

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 121

The Gauhati High Court has held that the sexual autonomy of an adult woman cannot be taken away merely on the basis of psychological test scores or an assessed mental age, and that the prosecution must lead specific expert evidence to establish that she was incapable of giving valid consent.

Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma observed, “A 24 year old woman assessed to have a mental age of 8/9 years cannot be straightaway equated with an actual 8/9 years old girl, as she has 24 years of lived experience as well as physical and social development, exposure to adult social environment and emotional maturity levels quite ahead of an actual 8/9 nine years old child.”

Gauhati High Court Quashes Defamation Case Against Asomiya Pratidin's Chief Editor, Printer And Publisher

Case Name: Hyder Hussain & Anr. v. Dhrubajyoti Rava

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 122

The Gauhati High Court quashed criminal defamation proceedings against the Chief Editor and the Printer and Publisher of Asomiya Pratidin, taking note of the complainant's stand that the publication had not spoiled his reputation in society.

Justice Shamima Jahan observed, “The first exception to section 499 IPC provides that it will not be defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person and if it is for the public good then no charges of defamation will be levelled.”

Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction, 15-Year Imprisonment Of Son Found Guilty Of Mother's Rape

Case Name: L v. The State of Mizoram

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 123

The Gauhati High Court has upheld the conviction of a man for rape of his mother, holding that the Supreme Court's observations on incestuous sexual violence requiring an "unsparing judicial response" would apply to the present case.

A Division Bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Budi Habung observed, "In the present case, the perpetrator of the crime is the 33 year old son, who had committed the heinous crime of rape against his own mother. We are of the view that the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhanei Prasad alias Raju (supra) would also be applicable to a certain degree in the present case."

Trial Court Can Rely On Accused's Plea Of Guilt Recorded At Charge Stage Even After Full Trial: Gauhati High Court

Case Title: Tutumoni Deva Goswami and Ors. v State of Assam and Ors

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 124

The Gauhati High Court has held that an accused's plea of guilt recorded at the stage of framing of charge does not lose its evidentiary value merely because the Trial Court proceeds to record evidence before deciding the case.

A Division Bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Rajesh Mazumdar observed, "Section 229 Cr.P.C provides that if the accused pleads guilty during framing of charge, the Judge shall record the plea and may, in his discretion, convict him thereon. The above provision nowhere provides that if a trial is held despite pleading guilty, the same implied that the Sessions Court was not convinced of the guilt of the accused."

Societal Interest In Prosecuting Serious Offences Prevails Despite Settlement Between Parties: Gauhati High Court

Case Title: Miss Maning Baki and Anr v. The State of AP

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 125

The Gauhati High Court has held that a settlement between the accused and the victim cannot justify quashing criminal proceedings involving a serious offence where societal interest lies in prosecution of the offender.

Justice Pranjal Das observed, “Thus, in serious offences, societal interest lies in prosecution of the offenders and adequate punishment, upon being found guilty. This societal interest would prevail in addition to the interest of the informant and the victim. Therefore, even if the informant/victim and the accused enter into a settlement, it might still be justified vis-a-vis societal interest to prosecute the offences, irrespective of the possible outcome during the trial.”

Litigant Should Not Suffer For Counsel's Lapse: Gauhati High Court Restores Appeal Dismissed For Non-Prosecution

Case Title: Kabak Bhatt v. Ms Biki Shapiong

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 127

The Gauhati High Court has reiterated that a litigant should not suffer due to the negligence of his counsel, while restoring an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution and condoning a delay of 123 days in seeking its restoration.

Justice Pranjal Das observed, “The decision in Solim Manyu Vs. Benglum Manyu, CRP/21(AP)/2025 and N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurty reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123, would not come in the way of this revisional court approaching the matter in a justice-oriented manner, keeping in mind the contentions of the petitioner and the principles laid down in the above discussed judgments.”

Bail Bond Amount Need Not Be Deposited In Cash For Release Of Accused: Gauhati High Court

Case Name: Shri Kamin Taloh & Anr. v. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Anr.

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 126

The Gauhati High Court has clarified that the amount mentioned in a bail or surety bond cannot be treated as an amount required to be deposited in cash for securing release on bail.

Justice Budi Habung observed, “it is hereby clarified that the amount specified in a personal/bail bond or surety bond does not mean that a cash deposit is required to be made before the police or the Court merely for securing release on bail. The accused and the surety shall, however, be required to execute the requisite bonds in accordance with law. No authority shall insist upon the deposit of the bail-bond amount in cash merely because such amount is mentioned in the bail order.”

Declared Foreigner Who Re-Entered India After Expulsion Not Entitled To Bail Despite Prolonged Detention: Gauhati High Court

Case Title: Uttam Das v The Union of India and Others

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 128

The Gauhati High Court recently held that a declared foreigner who was expelled from the country and re-entered the country illegally cannot claim bail on the ground of prolonged detention.

The bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund held that the Immigration and Foreigners Order 2025 empowered the State to impose restrictions on the movement of illegal migrants pending their expulsion. Thus, the court refused relief for a Bangladeshi Hindu man who had entered India illegally.

Govt Employee Has No Right To Continue In Official Quarter When It Is Needed For Public Interest Redevelopment: Gauhati High Court

Case Title: Ms Mary Megu v. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors.

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 129

The Gauhati High Court has held that a government employee has no right to claim continued occupation of an official quarter where the government has taken a policy decision to dismantle the premises and redevelop it by constructing a multi-storied building in the larger public interest.

Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair observed, “This Court further notices that the petitioner has no right to claim continued occupation of the quarter in question in view of the policy decision arrived at in the matter, pursuant to which the petitioner has been required to vacate the same.”

Children Who Lose Parent In Motor Accident Entitled To Parental Consortium: Gauhati High Court Enhances Compensation To ₹8 Lakh

Case Title: Smt Putul Deka & Ors. v. Sri Kamal Rajbongshi & Ors.

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 130

The Gauhati High Court enhanced accident compensation to the kin of a deceased man to over Rs. 8 Lakh granting compensation for deceased's future prospects who was 44 years old at the time of his death as well as parental consortium to his two sons which had not been granted by the motor accident tribunal.

BNSS Remedies Must Be Exhausted Before Moving High Court For FIR Registration: Gauhati High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Satyabrata Dey v. State of Assam & Ors.

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 131

The Gauhati High Court has held that a writ petition seeking registration of an FIR cannot be entertained where the petitioner has directly invoked the Court's writ jurisdiction without first availing the statutory remedy under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Justice Manish Choudhury observed, “Without availing such statutory remedy provided under the BNSS, the petitioner has directly invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking for initiation of criminal proceedings with registration of the FIR. Thus, in the considered view of this Court, such a recourse to writ proceeding in the first instance is contrary to the settled principles of law.”

Quashing Of Termination For Want Of Communication Doesn't Cure Defects In Initial Appointment: Gauhati High Court

Case Title: The State of Assam and 4 Ors. v. Chandreswar Saikia and Ors.

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 132

The Gauhati High Court has held that setting aside of a termination order for want of communication to the affected employee does not, by itself, entitle such employee to regular status from the date of the original appointment or to consequential service benefits.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury observed, “Setting aside an ineffective order of termination does not amount to a declaration that the original appointments were made in accordance with the prescribed recruitment procedure or that the appointee acquired an indefensible right to the post and all statutory benefits attached to a regular appointment.”

Contractor's Entitlement Must Be Verified Before Outstanding Dues Are Paid: Gauhati High Court

Case Title: Sudhang Kumar Brahma v. The Bodoland Territorial Council and 3 Ors.

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 133

The Gauhati High Court has directed the Bodoland Territorial Council authorities to verify whether a contractor completed the works in accordance with the work order and ascertain the exact amount, if any, to which he is entitled.

Justice Devashis Barua observed, “this Court is of the opinion that the interest of justice would be met if a direction is given to the Respondent Authorities to verify as to whether the Petitioner has completed the works in accordance with the work order and thereupon to ascertain the exact amount to which the Petitioner is entitled to, if any.”

Gauhati High Court Acquits Man In POCSO Case, Says Prosecution Failed To Prove He Knew Victim Was Minor

Case Title: Aminul Sikdar @ Md. Animul Sikdar v. State of Assam & Anr.

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 134

The Gauhati High Court quashed a man's conviction for kidnapping and sexual assault under POCSO Act observing that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt as it could not establish that the accused knew the alleged victim was a minor or that he had the intention to have sexual intercourse with her.

The court was hearing a man's appeal against a trial court order which had held that the alleged victim had gone with the appellant only because appellant had blackmailed her by saying that if she did not go with him he would commit suicide.

Earlier Finding Of Paternity Operates As Res Judicata In Maintenance Case; No DNA Test Without Strong Case Of Non-Access: Gauhati High Court

Case Title: Rafique Uddin Sekh @ Rafique Uddin v. Saina Begum Sheik

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 135

The Gauhati High Court has held that an earlier unchallenged finding that a man had a physical relationship with a woman and that a child was born out of that relationship can operate as res judicata in maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, so far as question of paternity of the child is concerned.

Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma observed, “The said issue, having been already decided in an earlier proceeding as above, the finding therein would operate as res judicata in the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. as well.”

24-Hour Clock For Production Before Magistrate Runs From Initial Detention, Not Formal Arrest Under NDPS Act: Gauhati High Court

Case Title: Hemanta Bordoloi v. Union of India

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 136

The Gauhati High Court has held that the 24-hour period for producing an accused before a Magistrate under Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 58 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 begins from the point of initial detention under Section 42 of the NDPS Act, and not from the time of formal arrest.

Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma observed, “Therefore, once a person is formally arrested pursuant to the aforesaid provision of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, it is a continuation of the initial detention under the same provision and during this entire period, the arrestee/person could hardly have been free to leave had he so wished. In other words, the person concerned was effectively in custody from the moment of his detention and no other interpretation is possible.”

Legal Heir Not Made Party Can Seek Setting Aside Of Ex-Parte Succession Certificate Under Order IX Rule 13 CPC: Gauhati High Court

Case Title: Punam Kashyap Sarmah & Anr. v. Smt. Karabika Kashyap Sarma

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 137

The Gauhati High Court has held that the remedy for revocation of a succession certificate under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act does not make an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC irrelevant where the succession proceedings had gone ex parte against a legal heir who was not made a party.

Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita observed, “The question that as there is a specific provision is there in the Succession Act under Section 383 of revocation of the succession certificate, the respondent ought to have preferred an application under the said provision also is not of much relevance in as much as the fact remains that the court of the learned Additional District Judge proceeded ex parte against the present respondent in Misc. (Succession) Case No. 17/2021.”

State Authority Can't Challenge Ex-Parte Award For Lack Of Hearing After Failing To Ensure Representation: Gauhati High Court

Case Title: The State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Smti. Rejina Sonowal & 3 Ors.

LL Citation: LiveLaw 2026 (Gau) 138

The Gauhati High Court has held that a State authority cannot assail an ex parte award for want of opportunity of hearing where it had notice of the proceedings, had engaged counsel and still failed to ensure its representation.

Justice Kaushik Goswami observed, “The fact that the appellant is a State authority cannot, by itself, absolve it of the responsibility of diligently pursuing proceedings of which it had due notice. Once the appellant had engaged counsel and its own office had been informed of the date fixed before the learned Tribunal, it was equally incumbent upon the appellant to take reasonable steps to ensure that its case was duly represented.”

Medical Evidence Showing Pregnancy Pre-Dated Alleged Rape Makes Victim Testimony Untrustworthy: Gauhati High Court Acquits POCSO Convict

Case Title: BABUL BAISHYA v. STATE OF ASSAM

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 139

The Gauhati High Court has set aside the conviction of a man under Section 376(3) IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act after finding that the medical evidence showed that the victim had become pregnant about two months prior to the alleged rape.

A Division Bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Shamima Jahan observed, “When the medical evidence with regard to the live foetus proved that the victim had become pregnant in February, 2017, her testimony that she had been raped by the appellant in April, 2017, which led to her being pregnant, turns out to be false. The evidence of PW-1 cannot be said to be trustworthy or truthful.”

Party Lacking Any Conceivable Right Over Land Can't Challenge Eviction Notice: Gauhati High Court

Case Title: Hasena Bewa and 10 Ors v. State of Assam and 8 Ors

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 140

The Gauhati High Court has held that a challenge to an eviction notice cannot be sustained where the petitioners fail to show any conceivable right over the land sought to be cleared.

Justice Devashis Baruah, observed, “Taking into account that the Petitioners have not been able to substantiate any material before this Court that they have any conceivable right in respect of Dag No.164 and Dag No.131 of village Magurmari, it is the opinion of this Court that the Petitioners cannot sustain a challenge to the impugned notice dated 19.04.2022.”

Disputed Monetary Entitlement Requiring Evidence Can't Be Decided In Writ Proceedings: Gauhati High Court

Case Title: Bikalanga Kalyan Kendra v. Union of India & 5 Ors.

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 141

The Gauhati High Court has held that a dispute over monetary entitlement, where evidence is required to be led, cannot be decided by the writ court and has to be adjudicated by a competent civil court.

Justice Devashis Baruah observed, “It is the opinion of the Court that if the Petitioner disputes the amount of its entitlement during the period i.e. from 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2013 and 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014, this Court cannot decide the same and in that regard, the Petitioner would have to approach the competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction.”

Municipality May Refuse To Renew Tenant's Trade Licence Where Landlord Objects: Gauhati High Court

Case Title: Nand Kishore Mundhra v. State of Assam and Others

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 142

The Gauhati High Court has held that a municipality can insist upon written agreement for renewal of a tenant's trade licence and may refuse renewal where there is no consent from the owner of the premises.

Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi observed, “In the instant case, there is no such consent from the owner of the premises who has also contested this proceeding by filing of an affidavit.”

The observation came in a writ petition challenging the Jorhat Municipal Board's order, cancelling the petitioner's trade licence.

Seizure Witness Signed Papers At Police Station, Didn't Witness Recovery: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In NDPS Case

Case Title: Hobiqul Islam v. State of Assam With Nijut Bormoholia v. State of Assam

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 143

The Gauhati High Court has acquitted two persons convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act after finding that the seizure witnesses stated that their signatures were obtained either at the police station or at their residence and that they had not witnessed the recovery.

Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita observed, “...none of the seizure witnesses has been able to prove the fact of recovery and seizure of the seized contraband from the possession of the present appellants.”

Plaintiff Can't Oppose Impleadment Of Proper Party Merely As 'Dominus Litis': Gauhati High Court

Case Title: Kimi Sarda v. Krishna Sharma & Ors.

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 144

The Gauhati High Court has held that a plaintiff cannot oppose the impleadment of a proper party merely on the ground that, being dominus litis, the plaintiff has the right to choose the persons against whom they wish to litigate.

Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita observed, “...the general rule with regard to impleadment of parties, that the plaintiff being dominus litis may choose the person against whom he wishes to litigate, gives way to the discretion of the court under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to implead either necessary or proper parties, as the case may be.”

National Highways Act | Reference Court Can Decide Title Dispute While Determining Entitlement To Land Acquisition Compensation: Gauhati High Court

Case Title: Faizur Rahman Laskar v. State of Assam & Ors.

LL Citation: LiveLaw 2026 (Gau) 145

The Gauhati High Court has held that where a dispute arises as to entitlement to compensation or its apportionment under the National Highways Act, 1956, the Reference Court under Section 3H(4) can incidentally decide questions of title.

Justice Devashis Baruah observed, “In fact, in a proceedings under Section 3H (4) of the Act of 1956, the Reference Court is equipped with the jurisdiction to incidentally decide the questions of title for determining entitlement to the compensation or apportionment of the compensation.”

Muslim Law Doesn't Recognize Joint Family, Brother Can't Sell Land Belonging To Minor Siblings: Gauhati High Court

Case Title: On the Death of Nur Mohammad All His Legal Heirs & Ors. v. Legal Heirs of Late Tarubala Saha & Ors.

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 147

The Gauhati High Court has reiterated that under Muslim Law interest of each heir is separate and distinct wherein the brother of four minor siblings cannot act as their guardian and sell off land belonging to the minors as under this law theory of representation or joint family is not recognized.

In doing so the court upheld the plaintiff's possession over a land parcel for 30-33 years, coupled with the defendants' failure to assert their claim within limitation, holding that she had perfected her right, title and interest despite the sale deed being void in respect of the four-fifth share belonging to four minors.

Building Partly On Govt Land: Gauhati High Court Says Extent Of Demolition & Compensation Must Be Decided By Civil Court

Case Title: On the Death of Indrasan Prasad Choudhury, His Legal Heirs Represented by Kalawati Devi & Ors. v. State of Assam & Ors.

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 148

The Gauhati High Court has held that the question of whether a building was damaged during an eviction drive, the extent of such demolition and the compensation payable for the loss cannot be determined in writ proceedings and must be adjudicated by a competent civil court on the basis of evidence.

Justice Devashis Baruah made the observation while dealing with a writ petition seeking compensation from government authorities for alleged damage to the petitioner's property during an eviction drive.

Long Occupation Of Govt Land Doesn't Create Right To Settlement Under Assam Settlement Rules: Gauhati High Court

Case Title: Dr. Maushumi Barooah v. State of Assam & 4 Ors.

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 149

The Gauhati High Court has held that merely being in occupation of Government land for a long time does not confer any right to have the land allotted, and at best the occupant may be considered for allotment subject to the land policy and public interest.

Justice Devashis Baruah observed, “This Court also cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that merely being in occupation of Government land, there is no conferment of right to be allotted the land. At best, it may be a case wherein the Petitioner or her husband could be considered for allotment subject to the land policy and public interest.”

Registering Authority Becomes Functus Officio Once Sale Deed Is Registered, Cannot Cancel It: Gauhati High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Nilima Baishya & Anr. v. State of Assam & Ors. Devi & Ors. v. State of Assam & Ors.

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 150

The Gauhati High Court has reiterated that once a sale deed is registered, the Sub-Registrar or Registrar becomes functus officio and has no power to cancel or reopen the registration. A registered sale deed can be cancelled only by a competent Civil Court.

Justice Anjan Moni Kalita observed, “a sale deed once registered by competent authority, i.e. the Sub-Registrar or the Registrar, the same cannot be cancelled by the Sub-Registrar or the Registrar. A cancellation of a registered sale deed can only be done by way of filing a suit for cancellation before the Civil Court.”

Blacklisting Can't Be Based Merely On Prima Facie Satisfaction From FIR, Chargesheet & Cognizance: Gauhati High Court

Case Title: United Drilling Tools Limited v. Oil India Limited & Ors.

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 151

The Gauhati High Court has held that blacklisting or debarment, which entails the consequence of a “civil death” to a contractor, cannot be based merely on a prima facie satisfaction and must follow an independent assessment of the available material by the competent authority.

Justice Devashis Baruaah observed, “A drastic measure of blacklisting which entails the consequence of a civil death to a contractor cannot be based upon a prima facie satisfaction. It has to be determinative to arrive at a satisfaction that the existent facts calls for drastic action against the contractor.”

Gauhati High Court Clubs 4 FIRs Over Alleged ₹80-Crore Skill-Training Fraud Involving 20,000 Fake Beneficiaries

Case Title: Alok Sarkar v. State of Assam & Ors.

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 152

The Gauhati High Court has clubbed four FIRs arising from allegations of an ₹80-crore skill development fraud involving more than 20,000 alleged fake labourers or beneficiaries, after finding that the allegations in all four FIRs were the same.

Justice Anjan Moni Kalita observed, “In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is also of the opinion that allowing four FIRs to independently go ahead will be an abuse of the process of law. It will also be contrary to the settled legal position, which will result in much avoidable multiplicity of proceedings, conflicting findings and serious prejudice to the petitioner in the instant case.”