Back
2018 Supreme(Gau) 910
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J.
Basant Sharma and Others - Appellant
Vs.
Union of India and Others Represented By Secretary to Govt. of India - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2737 of 2012
Decided On : 24-09-2018
M. Phukan, Adv., P. Baruahrl, Adv.
Ownership rights and encroachment claims must be substantiated with evidence, and the court's decision is based on the admission and claims made by the parties involved.
Headnote:
Land Dispute - Railway Encroachment - None
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner claimed to be co-pattadars of a piece of land, alleging encroachment by the railway authorities. The railway authorities denied the encroachment, stating that the disputed land was not railway land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disputed land was not railway land, based on the admission of the railway authorities. As a result, the writ petition was disposed of, directing the railway authorities not to encroach upon the petitioner's land.
Issues: Dispute over ownership and encroachment of land by railway authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the admission by the railway authorities that the disputed land was not railway land, as well as the petitioner's claim of ownership.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, with a direction to the railway authorities not to encroach upon the petitioner's land.
Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J.
None appears for the petitioner when the matter is called upon.
2. The order sheet reveals that when the matter earlier called on 06.09.2018 and 21.09.2018 none had appeared. None appears for the respondent in the NF Railway. Mr. P.S. Deka, learned standing counsel for the Revenue Department appears for the authorities under the State of Assam.
3. It being a writ petition pending since the year 2012 and also having noticed that upon going through the writ petition and the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent that certain legal right of the petitioner may have been violated, this writ petition is taken up for its final consideration.
4. In paragraph-2 of the writ petition, the petitioners state that they are co-pattadars in respect of land measuring 2 kathas 10 lechas of Dag No.58 of KP Patta No.15 of village Maligaon, Mouza-Jalukbari in the district Kamrup (metro). Out of the above, the petitioner No.1 own and possess certain portion of the land.
5. In paragraph-3 it is stated that the land adjacent to the land of the petitioner belongs to the respondent No.2. In paragraph-4, it is stated that on 29.03.2012 on the instruction of the Lat Mandal, Maligaon village, certain officials acting under the respondent No.2 had forcefully encroached upon the land owned and possessed by the petitioners and had put up a pillar stating that the land up to the pillar mark belongs to the railway authorities.
6. In the aforesaid premises, when this writ petition was moved, an interim order dated 08.06.2012 was passed requiring the parties to maintain status quo. The railway authorities have filed affidavit-in-opposition on 02.06.2016 wherein, in paragraph-4 it is stated as under:-
"That the statement made in Paragraph-3 of the Writ Petition is not correct and hence denied the same and this deponent further beg to state that The railway land Dag No. is 97 (old)/582 (new) and the adjacent to Railway land having Dag No.117, 118, 119, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 126, 125, 124, 123, 122, 121, 120 (All old) and corresponding new Dag Nos. are 679, 678, 664, 623, 619, 618, 614, 612, 611, 607, 606, 605, 601, 624, 640, 641, 645, 646, 662, 663 and not Dag No.58 (old)/ 677 (new). So the statement given by the petitioner is not correct."
Again in paragraph-5 it is stated as under:-
"That the statement made in Paragraph-4 of the Writ Petition is not correct and hence denied the same and the humble deponent further beg to state that the railway has replaced the damaged pillar along the boundary of railway land having Dag No.97(old)/582 (new) and boundary of adjacent land of Dag No.117, 118, 119, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 126, 125, 124, 123, 122, 121, 120 (All old) and corresponding new Dag Nos. are 679, 678, 664, 623, 619, 618, 614, 612, 611, 607, 606, 605, 601, 624, 640, 641, 645, 646, 662, 663 in presence of representative of Circle Officer, Guwahati+i Revenue Circle. There is a private land of Dag No.117 (old)/679 (new) between railway land of Dag No. 97(old)/582 (new) and private land of 58 (old)/677(new). Hence, encroaching of land of Dag No.58 (old)/677 (new). Hence, encroaching of land of Dag No.58 (old)/677 (new) does not arise. So the allegation of petitioner that encroachment of private land of Dag No. 58 (old)/677 (new) by railway is not correct."
7. From a reading of the averments made in paragraph-4 and 5, it is discernible that the land under the dag numbers therein are railway land. But at the same time, from paragraph5, it is also discernible that the land under dag No.117(old)/679(new) between the railway land of dag No.97(old)/582(new) and the land under dag No.58(old)/677(new) are private land. A further statement has been made that under the circumstance, the question of railway authorities encoraching upon the land of dag no.58(old) and 677(new) does not arise.
8. When the said statement of the railway authorities is looked into from the point of view of the
