1. Heard Mr. Y.S. Mannan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. B. Das, learned Central Government Counsel.

This petition, under article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed for quashing of eviction order dated 22.5.2012 issued by the Estate Officer and for a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue possession over his land and premises.

Case of the petitioner is that he is an Ex-Army man and after retirement, he is permanently settled at Guwahati by constructing house over purchased land.

Petitioner had purchased a plot of land measuring 1 katha, 5 lechas covered by Dag Nos. 105 and 102 of Village Batahghuli, Mouza-Beltola in Guwahati. The said land is near the Army Cantonment at Narengi. Accordingly, petitioner wrote to the Administrative Commandant of the Army on 23.12.2002 requesting the said authority to inform him as to whether the purchased land would, in any way, come in contact with the defence land. Petitioner was informed by the Defence Estate Officer, Guwahati Circle that the land was verified both as per record and as per site inspection and it was found that the purchased land was outside the defence boundary. On receipt of above clarification, petitioner started construction of his house.

However, petitioner was served with an eviction notice dated 15.7.2003 issued by the Administrative Commandant asking him to remove the structure constructed by him over the land, declaring such construction to be unauthorized.

At that stage, petitioner approached this court by filing WP(C) No.5686/ 2003. This court by order dated 29.7.2003 passed an interim order to the effect that petitioner should not be ousted unless the Defence Estate Officer was satisfied that the land under occupation of the petitioner is situated within the defence area. Respondents did not contest the said proceeding by filing affidavit or by filing any application for vacation of the interim order. By order dated 19.9.2006, this court disposed of WP(C) No.5686/2003 with the direction that the petitioner shall not be evicted save and accept in accordance with law and without following the procedure established under the law.

Six years thereafter, the impugned order dated 22.5.2012 was passed by the Estate Officer.

Hence, the writ petition.

This court by order dated 8.6.2012 issued notice and directed, as an interim measure, that no coercive measure shall be taken pursuant to the eviction order dated 22.5.2012.

Impugned order dated 22.5.2012 reads as under :

"1. Whereas I, the undersigned, am satisfied for the reasons recorded below that Ex Nk MB Sinha is in unauthorized occupation of the Public Premises specified in the Schedule below

Reasons

(a) The land in question is defence acquired land

(b) You were told to submit the supporting documents by 30th April, 2012, as proof during the meeting which was held on 16th April, 2012. You have submitted the documents as a proof of ownership of land but it is invalid since the same is not authenticated by the competent authority.

2. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred on me under subsection (1) of section 5B of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971,I hereby order the said Ex Nk M.B. Sinha and all persons who may be in occupation of the said premises or any part thereof to vacate the said premises within 15 days of the publication of this order. In the event of refusal or failure to comply with this order within the period specified above the said Ex Nk M.B. Sinha and all other persons concerned are liable to be evicted from the said premises, if need be by the use of such force as may be necessary.

Schedule

Dag no./BP No: BP No. 141 to 160 (Dag No. 10)

SI.No.Area Type Description

(a) Panjabari Assam type permanent house, Mandir permanent Full blidg & Mandir"

It is, thus, seen that the impugned order was passed in exercise of power conferred under sub-section (1) of section 5B of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 197

Click Here to Read the rest of this document