High Court · 2012

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.K.GOEL HON’BLE MR JUSTICE N.KOTISWAR SINGH (Goel, CJ): This appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Single J udge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant against his eviction from th e property in his possession by demolishing the house constructed thereon.

2. Case of the appellant is that he is an Advocate and his wife is a gover nment employee. He purchased possessory right of the land in question in the y ear 1976 and paid land revenue (Touzibahi) from 1979 till the Government stopp ed receiving such revenue. He also paid tax to the Municipal Corporation. He made an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup for allotment of the said land on the ground that he was a economically backward person and was livi ng in the property with his family. His eldest daughter was studying Civil Aviat ion Technology in New Delhi. 3. Since his application was not considered, he filed WP (C) No.570/2004 w hich was disposed of on 5.2.2004 with a direction that the appellant may not be evicted except in accordance with law. After the said order, the appellant again sought for allotment of the land but he was evicted on 25.2.2005 and construct ion was demolished. He lodged FIR and thereafter approached this Court with a grievance that demolition of the house of the appellant was illegal for which he was entitled to compensation.

4. Claim of the appellant was opposed by the respondents by stating that p ossession of the appellant was unauthorised and the land was a government land. The land was allotted to the State Transport Corporation for setting up a bus station. If the land under occupation of the appellant was not be cleared, it may cause inconvenience to the general public. Eviction of the appellant was pe rmissible under Rule 18(2) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation,1996 and acc ordingly eviction was ordered on 25.2.2005 under the said provision.

5. After due consideration, learned Single Judge did not find any meri t in the writ petition and dismissed the same as follows :- (cid:28) 13. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the part ies and the materials on record. There is no dispute that the petitioner was in occupation of the Govt. land which falls within the area of the land allotted t o the ASTC by the Govt. for a public purpose. The Dispur ASTC bus station was required to be shifted for public purpose and accordingly the Govt. in considera tion of the practical reality and as a public policy decided to allot the parti cular plot of land to the ASTC and the said authority has now occupied the land. The land has been developed by the ASTC and the bus terminus has been construct ed and as per the own admission of the petitioner, the buses under ASTC are runn ing from the said bus station. 14. It is not only the petitioner who has been evicted from the land but othe r such encroachers of the Govt. land have also been evicted. It will pertinent t o mention here that the earlier writ petition being W.P.( C) No.570/04 was filed by as many as 25 number of writ petitioners out of which the present petitioner was the petitioner No.1. The writ petition was filed when a driver was made to evict the unauthorised occupants of the Govt. land and the writ petition was disposed of by order dated 05.02.04 in terms of which the competent authority wa s authorised to evict the encroachers in accordance with law. Merely because th e prayer of the petitioner for settlement of the land was processed at some leve l including at the level of the Chief Revenue Assistant whose authority in suc h mater is not known, the petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right that the land must be settled with him. If the petitioner occupied the Govt. land and ce rtain constructions on it even before the land was settled with him, same was a t his own risk and cost. No one has any right to make construction over the Gov t. land and then to say, upon eviction and demolition of such construction that such eviction and demolition were illegal and consequently he is entitled to ge t compensation. 15. After the petitioner was evicted from the land and his illegal construct ion was demolished, he lodged an FIR with the Basistha Police Station about whic h mention has been made above. The copy of the FIR dated 25.2.2005 has been anne xed as Annexure-19 which discloses as many as 9 business establishments. Thus, t he petitioner claiming himself to be a landless and economically backward perso n while staying at the Govt. allotted quarter to his wife made use of the Govt. Land for rent purpose and upon demolition of such unauthorised construction, has filed the writ petition. (cid:29)

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant admits that the land in question is a government land but he submits that since the appellant has raised construc tion thereon he could not be evicted without notice and without giving him an o pportunity to make an alternative arrangement. Alternatively, he submitted that at least three months time may be given to him for making alternative arrangeme nt for his shifting.

8. We do not find any merit in the submission of the appellant against v alidity of his eviction. Admittedly, he was in unauthorised possession of the g overnment land without any title. He could, thus, be evicted in a lawful manner, as has been done.

9. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. We note the submission on behalf of the respondents that the appellant has already been evicted. However, if the appellant is still in possession, he may be given three months time so that he may make alternative arrangement for shifting from the pr esent land.