N. Chaudhury, J.:--

By invoking the provision of Article 227 of the Constitution of India along with other provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure the present application has been preferred challenging the concurrent findings of the learned two courts below. The related facts are required to be stated at the threshold.

2. The present petitioner is plaintiff in Title Suit No.13/2015 in the court of learned Munsiff No.1, Morigaon against the opposite parties herein. It is pleaded that a plot of land measuring 3 lechas out of 4 katha 16 lechas covered by Dag No.174 of Jagiroad Revenue Town Kissam under mouza Gova in the district of Morigaon are described in schedule-A & B to the plaint. The father of the plaintiff, Ganga Ram Das, had been possessing the suit land since 1960 by constructing temporary structure and plaintiff has been continuing in possession of the land after death of her father. She is an Ayruvedic doctor and running her pharmacy in a house standing on Schedule-B land. The Circle Officer, Mayang Revenue Circle, issued a certificate in her favour showing that she has been in possession of the land. The defendant Nos.3 and 4 informed the plaintiff that the defendant No.2 would evict the plaintiff from the Schedule-B land within 3/4 days and accordingly on 30.01.2015 at about 1.00 P.M. principal defendant Nos.3 and 4 jointly went to the shop of the plaintiff and put a red 'X' mark on the pucca wall of the plaintiff and informed her that she would be evicted from the Schedule-B land within 3/4 days. Before doing so, no notice in accordance with law was issued to the plaintiff. Since the matter was an urgent one, the petitioner craved leave under Section 80(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and thereupon instituted the suit for declaration of her possessory right over the suit land. However, no specific prayer has been made for decree of injunction either permanent or temporary. In the said suit the plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and prayed for an injunction restraining the opposite parties from entering into the Schedule-B land to evict the petitioner during the pendency of the suit. The application was registered and numbered as Misc.(J) Case No.16/2015. The learned trial court pending issuance of notice passed an ad-interim order dated 11.02.2015 directing the parties to maintain status quo.

3. Defendant Nos.1 to 4, who are the officers of the N.F. Railways, filed written objection against the injunction petition not only on merit but also on maintainability. In paragraph 4 of the application it was stated that the land belongs to the Railways and so it has statutory right to evict unauthorized occupants under provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.

4. The proforma defendants, who are officers of the State of Assam, filed a separate written objection. It is the case of the State respondents that the land belongs to the Railway authority.

5. The learned trial court after considering the pleadings of both sides passed order dated 19.06.2015 rejecting the application for injunction and directed trial of the suit. The aforesaid order dated 19.06.2015 was challenged by the plaintiff in Misc. Appeal No.3/2015 in the court of learned Civil Judge at Morigaon. The learned First Appellate Court after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal on 22.09.2015 holding that the suit land actually belongs to Railways and not the Government road-side land. The possession certificate issued by the Revenue Circle Officer at Mayang was not an authentic one, more particularly when the proforma defendants have not taken the stand that the suit land is Government land. According to the learned First Appellate Court, the plaintiff does not have any prima facie case and that public interest would be badly affected if injunction in the form of status quo is maintained. With these findings the appeal was dismissed. These two orders have been

Click Here to Read the rest of this document