Page No.# 1/7 vs Bonoshree Saikia And 7 Ors on 9 February, 2026

                                                                 Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010255752024




                                                           2026:GAU-AS:1691

                       THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                         Case No. : Review.Pet./251/2025

         NAREN SAIKIA AND 7 ORS
         SON OF LATE GHANA KANTA SAIKIA, RESIDENCE OF TARAJAN, SONARI
         GAON, ROAD NO.2, P.O- JORHAT, DISTRICT-JORHAT, PIN-785001.

         2: SRI ANKUR DAS
          S/O LATE LAKHI KANTA DAS

         RESIDENT OF TARAJAN SONARI GOAN
         ROAD NO. 2
         PO AND DIST JORHAT ASSAM 785001

         3: SRI SUBRATA BORDOLOI
          S/O SRI SAILEN KR. BORDOLOI

         RESIDENT OF TARAJAN SONARI GOAN
         ROAD NO. 2
         PO AND DIST JORHAT ASSAM 785001

         4: SRI BOLIN BORA
          S/O LATE JAGAT BORA

         RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAHALIA GAON (PIJOLI CHAWK) PO RRL. PS
         PULIBAR
         DIST JORHAT
         ASSAM 785006

         5: SRI JITENDRA SAHA
          S/O SRI LALAN SAHA

         RESIDENT OF HEZARIGAON
         PULIBAR
         PO RRL
         PS PULIBARI
         DIST JORHAT
                                                        Page No.# 2/7

ASSAM 785006

6: SRI JUGAL DAS
 S/O LATE MADAN DAS

RESIDENT OF TARAJAN SONARI GOAN
ROAD NO. 2
PO AND DIST JORHAT ASSAM 785001

7: SRI BIMAN DAS
 S/O LATE MINADHAR SAIKIA

RESIDENT OF TARAJAN SONARI GOAN
ROAD NO. 2
PO AND DIST JORHAT ASSAM 785001

8: SRI LAKHI KANTA DAS

S/O LATE SORURAM MUKTIAR

RESIDENT OF TARAJAN SONARI GOAN
ROAD NO. 2
PO AND DIST JORHAT ASSAM 78500

VERSUS

BONOSHREE SAIKIA AND 7 ORS
DAUGHTER OF SUSHIL SAIKIA, RESIDENCE OF VILLAGE- BARUA BARI
GAON, POST OFFICE- JORHAT, POLICE STATION- JORHAT, DISTRICT-
JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN-785101.

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
 REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT
 GOVT. OF ASSAM
 DISPUR
 GUWAHATI-781006.

3:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
 PALTAN BAZAR
 GUWAHATI
 PIN-781008.

4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER CIVIL
ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION PALTANBAZAR
 GUWAHATI
                                                                           Page No.# 3/7

             PIN-781008.

            5:THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CIVIL
            ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION PALTANBAZAR
             GUWAHATI
             PIN-781008.

            6:THE CHIEF ENGINEER CIVIL
            ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION JORHAT
             PIN-781036.

            7:THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT IN-CHARGE
            ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION JORHAT PIN-781036.

            8:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER JORHAT
             DIST- JORHAT
            ASSAM
             PIN-785001

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR B D DAS, MR. H R DAS,MR H K SARMA

Advocate for the Respondent : , GA, ASSAM,SC, A S T C,MR. K N CHOUDHURY(R-1),MISS. R
R KAKATI (R-1),MR. D J DAS(R-1),N GAUTAM(R-1),MR. TANUZ KASHYAP(R-1),MS N
MAHANTA(R-1)




             Linked Case : WP(C)/4555/2024

            BONOSHREE SAIKIA
            D/O- SUSHIL SAIKIA

            RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BARUA BARI GAON

            POST OFFICE- JORHAT

            POLICE STATION- JORHAT

            DISTRICT- JORHAT
            ASSAM

            PIN-785101.


             VERSUS
                                                       Page No.# 4/7


THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
REPRESENTED B THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM

TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT

GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM

DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006.

2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
PALTAN BAZAR
 GUWAHATI
 PIN- 781008.

 3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER (CIVIL)
ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
PALTANBAZAR
 GUWAHATI
 PIN- 781008.

 4:THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (CIVIL)
ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
PALTANBAZAR
 GUWAHATI
 PIN- 781008.

5:THE CHIEF ENGINEER(CIVIL)
ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
JORHAT
PIN -781036.

 6:THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT
 IN-CHARGE
 ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
JORHAT
 PIN- 781036.

 7:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
 JORHAT DISTRICT
JORHAT
 785001.
 ------------
 Advocate for : MR. K N CHOUDHURY
Advocate for : SC
                                                                        Page No.# 5/7

            TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT
            ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS



                                 BEFORE
                 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

                                     ORDER

Date : 09.02.2026 Heard Mr. H.R. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. R.R. Kakati, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, Mr. R.B. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Transport Department, appearing for the respondent No. 2, and Mr. A. Chamuah, learned Standing Counsel, ASTC, appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 to 7.

2. The present review petition has been filed seeking review of the judgment and order dated 29.10.2024 passed in WP(C) No. 4555/2024, confined to the grievance that the review petitioners were referred to as encroachers in the said order.

3. In WP(C) No. 4555/2024, the writ petitioner had sought a direction for handing over vacant and peaceful possession of an area measuring 400 sq. ft. at ISBT in terms of the NIT dated 02.01.2024, the Allotment Order dated 22.03.2024 and the Agreement dated 22.05.2024. This Court, while disposing of the writ petition, issued a direction to the respondent ASTC to take necessary steps in accordance with law, with the assistance of the District Administration, after due verification and opportunity, to make the subject space available to the writ petitioner. No adjudication of title, right or status of any occupant was undertaken.

Page No.# 6/7

4. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the aforesaid direction, notices were issued by the District Administration to the occupants of the subject area, including the present review petitioners, they were heard, and thereafter eviction notices dated 27.11.2024 were issued.

5. The review petitioners were granted leave to file the present review petition by order dated 08.09.2025 passed in I.A.(Civil) No. 3756/2024.

6. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the review petitioners is that the reference to them as encroachers in the judgment under review is prejudicial, as they were not parties to the writ petition and had no opportunity to contest such description. It is also submitted that some of the review petitioners have separately challenged the tender process in WP(C) No. 6681/2024.

7. The scope of review jurisdiction is well settled and is confined to correction of an error apparent on the face of the record or other grounds analogous thereto. Review proceedings cannot be converted into an appeal in disguise, nor can they be used to reopen issues not decided or to test the correctness of consequential actions taken by statutory authorities pursuant to a judicial direction.

8. In the present case, this Court neither returned any finding declaring the review petitioners to be encroachers nor conclusively determined their legal status. The expression complained of descriptively in the context of the relief sought and cannot be construed as a binding or operative adjudication affecting civil rights.

Page No.# 7/7

9. Significantly, the review petitioners were afforded an opportunity of hearing by the District Administration prior to issuance of eviction notices. The eviction notice dated 27.11.2024 has not been put to challenge before any competent forum. Issues relating to payment of rent, nature of occupation, or legality of the tender process involve disputed questions of fact and are already stated to be the subject- matter of independent proceedings including WP(C) No. 6681/2024.

10. In view of the above, this Court finds that no error apparent on the face of the record is made out warranting exercise of review jurisdiction. The grounds urged seek, in substance, a rehearing on issues neither adjudicated nor required to be adjudicated in the writ petition, which is impermissible in review.

11. Accordingly, the review petition stands dismissed.

12. It is clarified that the judgment & order dated 29.10.2024 shall not be construed as a final determination of the status or rights of the review petitioners or any other occupants. All such issues are left open to be adjudicated by the appropriate forum in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observation made in the said order.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant