High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 2670/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T. VAIPHEI In this writ petition, the petitioner initially prayed for declaring that the en croachment of her land by the PWD is illegal and to provide her compensation in accordance with the provision of Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1 964 (for short Act). The case of the petitioner is that she is an ex-employee of Life Insurance Corporation of India, and is a resident of Ananda Nagar, Bye Lan e - 1, near Dispur Old Post Office, House No. 83, Guwahati-05. She is admittedly the owner of a plot of land measuring 1 Katha, 5 Lechas covered by Dag No.801, 796, Patta No.178, Ward No. 24 under Village-Japorigog, Mouza beltola as can be seen from the patta produced by her, which is marked as ’X’. It is her case that on 23.01.2009 some PWD personnel entered her premises and encroached upon her l and to the extent of 722.2 Sq. Ft in the course of extension of the Bye Lane No. 1, which is in violation of the provision of Act.
Decision
2. The writ petition is opposed by the respondent authorities, who have fil ed their affidavit-in-opposition. The main contentions of the respondent authori ties are found at paragraph 9 of the affidavit-in-opposition, which read thus : - (cid:28)9. That the statements made in paragraph 7 of the writ petition are incorrect a nd baseless and hence categorically denied by the deponent. The deponent humbly begs to state that the petitioner did not object to construction of drain taking about 2 ‰ feet of her land during construction time. Otherwise the drain could not have been complete. The petitioner was only concerned about her well, which was fully taken care of by the department while constructing the road and drain. As all the residents numbering more than hundred living by the side of 2.3 K.M. long road, volunteered to relinquish the land required for widening and constru ction of drain, the petitioner also agreed to relinquish her land. It was only i n such circumstances the PWD proceeded on to construct the road and the drain no t only on the entire stretch of road but also the stretch in front of the petiti oner’s residence. Be it stated herein that nothing was mentioned regarding acqui sition of land and compensation thereof in the petitioner’s letter dated 24.03.2 009 and 2.04.2009. This clearly shows that it is an afterthought and is hit by w aiver and estoppels. As there was no existence of trees except some flower plant s and bushes, cutting of any tree during construction of drain does not arise at all. It is true that the two gates were dismantled during construction of drain along with boundary wall. A portion of boundary wall has already been reconstru cted by the PWD but the petitioner suddenly stopped the work for which the gates and rest of the boundary wall could not be completed. The complaint of the peti tioner was that the PWD took more land from the petitioner than the other reside nts which is not correct at all. (cid:29) On perusal of the aforesaid affidavit, it is admitted by the respondent 3. authorities that the boundary wall and two gates of the petitioner had been dism antled by the PWD officials in the course of construction of the drain. In simil ar case decided by the order dated 14.09.2009 by this Court in WP(C) No.1917/200 9, upon instruction, the PWD had agreed to construct the boundary wall and iron gates of the petitioner therein. Taking a cue from this order, Mr. D Baruah, lea rned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ms. R Deka may be asked to seek ins truction from the PWD as to whether this writ petition can be disposed of in ter ms of the aforesaid order dated 14.09.2009 of this Court. When the case came up for hearing on 13.08.2013, this Court had asked Ms. R Deka, learned Standing Cou nsel, PWD to obtain such instruction and place before this Court today. However, the learned Standing Counsel, PWD has today expressed her inability to obtain t he instruction despite her best efforts. This case has been pending since 2009. Under the circumstances, this Court cannot simply wait for the the PWD authoriti es to express their views. The fact that the properties of the petitioner had be en destroyed in the manner described by her in her writ petition is not disputed by the respondent authorities in their affidavit-in-opposition: the petitioner merely wants her boundary wall and two iron gates, which were destroyed by none other than the PWD authorities while extending Bye Lane No. 1 near the Old Post Office, to be constructed. In my opinion, the respondent authorities ought to ha ve acceded to the request of the petitioner since they have decided not to proce ed under the provision of the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1964 to acquire the land of the petitioner. The right to property of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 300 A of the Constitution of India has undoubtedly been violated by the respondent authorities while extending the Bye Lane No. 1 near the Dispur Old Post Office. They readily agreed to construct the iron gate and b oundary wall in WP(C) No.1917/2009, who stand on similar footing with the petiti oner. The respondent authorities have clearly subjected the petitioner to hostil e discrimination: this warrants the interference of this Court. 4. For what has been stated in the foregoing, this writ petition succeeds. The respondent authorities, particularly, the respondent No. 4 (Chief Engineer, PWD, Chandmari, Guwahati-3), are directed to construct the boundary wall and the iron gates of the petitioner, which were demolished by them while extending Bye Lane No. 2 near the Dispur Old Post Office at their own costs and expenses with in a period of 45 days from the ate of receipt of the certified copy of this ord er. No costs.