Bodhisatta Chakma and 17 Ors vs The State of AP and 6 Ors Advocate - GA (AP) — IA(C)/96/2026
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1. Disposed: --Disposed Of on 07th May 2026.
CNR: GAHC040006332026
Filing Number
IA(C)/393/2026
Filing Date
06-05-2026
Registration No
IA(C)/96/2026
Registration Date
06-05-2026
Judge
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG
Coram
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG
Bench Type
Single Bench
Judicial Branch
Civil Section
Decision Date
07th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
--Disposed Of
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Bodhisatta Chakma and 17 Ors
Adv. Chanya Bangsia
Usha May Chakma
Sumel Dewan Chakma
Moni Mohan Chakma
Rakesh Chakma
Jitendra Chakma
Ananda Chakma
Raju Chakma
Bijoy Chakma
Lakhi Mukhi Chakma
Prity Moy Chakma
Riya Chakma
Amar Kanti Chakma
Kalasing Chakma
Maratya Chakma
Ajoy Chakma
Aloranjan Chakma
Dipika Chakma
Respondent(s)
The State of AP and 6 Ors Advocate - GA (Government Advocate) (AP)
The Secretary
The Director
The District Collector cum Deputy Commissioner
Chakma Rehabilitation and Resettlement Committee
The Airport Authority of India
The Ministry of Civil Aviation
Orders
Case Summary: IA(C)/96/2026 Court Decision: The Gauhati High Court (Itanagar Bench) granted the applicants' petition to implead the Airport Authority of India and the Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India as necessary party respondents (Nos. 6 & 7) in the underlying writ petition WP(C) 110(AP) 2023. Key Reasoning: The court found that both entities are necessary parties because any compensation ordered in the case would need to be paid by these authorities. The State's Additional Advocate General did not object to the impleadment request, leading to its approval. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: IA(C)/96/2026 Court Decision: The Gauhati High Court (Itanagar Bench) granted the applicants' petition to implead the Airport Authority of India and the Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India as necessary party respondents (Nos. 6 & 7) in the underlying writ petition WP(C) 110(AP) 2023. Key Reasoning: The court found that both entities are necessary parties because any compensation ordered in the case would need to be paid by these authorities. The State's Additional Advocate General did not object to the impleadment request, leading to its approval. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts