High Court · 2009

4. In April, 2000 the petitioner made an application to the Deputy Commissi oner, Kamrup for settlement of the said Govt. land under his possession. While d escribing the children of the petitioner in paragraph-2 of the writ petition, he has stated that his eldest daughter is studying in Civil Aviation technology i n New Delhi. His application for settlement of land was processed by the Chief Revenue Assistant and other authorities. Be it stated here that in the applicati on, the petitioner described himself as landless and economically backward perso n. It appears that some query was made as to whether the land in question was in volved in the particular writ proceeding (CR (SH) No. 128/98). By Annexure-II or der dated 04.01.04, the Chief Revenue Assistant in the office of the Deputy Comm issioner, Revenue Settlement Branch requested the Circle Officer, Dispur Revenu e Circle to submit a fresh proposal.

5. According to the petitioner, some surrendered militants came to occupy another plot of Govt. land lying vacant adjacent to the petitioner’s land. Howev er later on they left the place and thereafter the Association called Minibus As sociation occupied and developed the said plot of land for the purpose of shifti ng their stand from Paltanbazar to Khanapara. It will be pertinent to mention he re that the said land alongwith the land of the petitioner is adjacent to the Na tional Highway No. 37. According to the petitioner, the said Association also ab andoned the land and the same was occupied by the Assam State Transport Corporat ion (ASTC) on 24.12.03 and started functioning from there. The constructions wer e made for the bus station and the said bus station is known as Khanapara ASTC B us Station.

6. When efforts were made to evict the petitioner and others by the ASTC a uthority, the petitioner and others filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 570/ 2004 and the same was disposed of by order dated 05.02.04 providing that if the petitioners were in possession of the land in question, they should not be evict ed from the same except in accordance with law. After such an order passed by th is Court, the petitioner once again approached the revenue authority for settlem ent of the land. However, he was evicted from the land on 25.02.05 which accordi ng to the petitioner was without any prior notice. The construction made by the petitioner was also demolished. After such eviction of the petitioner from the l and by the respondents, he lodged an FIR with the Basistha Police Station on 25 .02.05. According to the petitioner, the loss incurred by him for such eviction and demolition of his house stood at Rs. 10 lakhs and that he is entitled to c ompensation to the tune of Rs. 21,47,000/-.

7. It is in the aforesaid backdrop this writ petition has been filed with the prayer for declaring the eviction of the petitioner as illegal and to pay co mpensation to him.

8. The respondents in their counter affidavits have denied the contentions raised in the writ petition. In the affidavit filed by the Managing Director of the ASTC. It has been stated that the Dispur bus station has been shifted to Kha napara where the petitioner was in occupation of the Govt. land unauthorizedly. Such shifting of the bus station from Dispur to Khanapara was required to facili tate renovation/reconstruction of Dispur Capital Complex. On the prayer of the C orporation, the Govt. of Assam in the Revenue Department allotted it a plot of l and measuring 5 bighas, 1 katha covering Dag No. 359 at Village Khanapara under Beltola Mouza. The land is roadside land adjacent to the National Highway No. 37 . The Corporation was allotted with the land on payment of premium of Rs. 28,45, 824/-. Presently the bus station at Khanapara is being used by the Corporation a nd some buses are also operating under the banner of the Corporation as per the scheme of the Corporation.

9. In the affidavit it has further been stated that the Corporation does n ot have any other land except the said land at Khanapara which is suitable for r unning the bus station. Further statement made is that, the land allotted to the Corporation is a Govt. land and was originally reserved in the name of general administration department by the Govt. of Assam. It was found that the petitione r was encroaching upon a portion of the land (about 2 kathas). The Corporation a fter allotment of the land, has developed the same by earth filling and construc ting the station yard. However, in view of the interim order passed, that part o f the land under occupation of the petitioner could not be developed which has c aused inconvenience to the Corporation and to the general public.

10. It appears that a number of affidavits have been filed by the petitioner . Other respondents have also filed their affidavits. The gist of the stand of t he respondents is that since the petitioner was in occupation of the Govt. land, he has rightly been evicted from the same when public purpose demanded such evi ction. Referring to the land policy of 1989 of the Govt. of Assam, it is the sta nd of the petitioner that he is entitled to get settlement of the land, he being landless and economically backward. In the affidavit filed by the District Admi nistration, it is the stand that the prayer of the petitioner for settlement of the land could not be considered as the land was required for public purpose bei ng situated adjacent to the National Highway. It has been stated that the petiti oner has been evicted from the land as per the provision of Rule 18 (2) of the A ssam Land Revenue Regulation, 1886. Such eviction was on 25.02.05. In the affida vit the eviction Case No. 7/2004-2005 has been referred to and it has been state d that the eviction order dated 16.02.05 was passed under Rule 18(2) of the afor esaid Regulation. It is the stand in the affidavit that the land measuring 5 bi ghas, 1 lecha which includes the land unauthorizedly occupied by the petitioner was handed over to the ASTC upon clearing the encroachment.

11. The petitioner who has argued his case in person has referred to the l arge number of affidavits he has filed so as to contend that his eviction from t he land was illegal and unauthorized. According to him he was entitled to notice before such eviction. He has also referred to the following decisions in suppor t of his case. a) . Housing Society Ltd. b) AIR 1996 SC 114 (U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & ano. Vs. Friends Co-op AIR 1997 SC 152 (Ahmedabad Municipality Corporation vs. Nawab Khan Gulab 1984 (1) GLR 474 (Shew Chand Chouhan & ors. Vs. The Revenue Officer Karb