The main legal point established in the judgment is that the actions of an authority must be done in pursuance of the powers conferred by the Act, and if found to be beyond its powers, the suit challenging such actions may be maintainable.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. Y.S. Mannan, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. P.K. Kalita, the learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. N. Das, the learned counsel for the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 and Mr. C.K.S. Barua, the learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for respondent No.4.

2. This appeal under Order XLIII read with section 104 CPC has been filed to challenge the order dated 16.02.2016, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh in Misc. (J) Case No. 86/2015 in Title Suit No. 99/2015, by which the said learned Court had held, inter-alia, that the suit filed by the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 was maintainable, and the further extension of the order of status quo dated 22.12.2015 was allowed till further orders.

3. The case in brief, necessary for the purpose of this order is that the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 are the plaintiffs in the suit. The appellant and the respondent No.4 are arrayed as the defendant Nos.1 and 3 in the suit. In the plaint, it was projected that the brother of the appellants father was the owner of ground floor of the building in question, having 6 (six) commercial tenants. Out of the said tenants, the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 are 3 (three) tenants, who purchased the shops together his proportionate share in the land from out of the share of the said brother of the appellants father. Accordingly, the names of the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 were mutated in respect of their purchased property.

On death of the appellants father, the appellant inherited his estate. The Addl. Deputy Commissioner - cum - CEO, District Disaster Management Authority, by his letter dated 20.03.2015, made some request to the Executive Engineer, PWD, Dibrugarh Building Division, who by his letter dated 27.07.2015, portrayed the building as damaged and recommended demolition or extensive restoration and retro-fitting and the Executive Engineer, PWD also issued a cessation certificate dated 27.08.2015 to demolish the building. Accordingly, the respondent No.4, by issuing notice, called the concerned parties to his office for discussion and thereupon, prepared a Minutes of Meeting held on 04.12.2015, inter-alia, stating that the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 would have one months time and additional 15 days time till 19.01.2016 to vacate the building, the appellant would have 6 months time to construct new building (at least the ground floor), which included the time for demolition of building and upon completion, the appellant would hand over possession of commercial establishments to their owner as per their mutual agreement.

4. The aggrieved respondents No.1, 2 and 3 then instituted the suit and amongst others, prayed (i) for declaration that the respondent No.4 had issued the cessation certificate dated 27.08.2015 without their knowledge and on request of the appellant, which was illegal, inoperative and liable to be set aside; (ii) for declaration that finding by the respondent No.4 vide order dated 04.12.2015 for demolition of the building and for reconstruction of shop premises of the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 by the appellant was illegal, inoperative and liable to be set aside; (iii) for declaration that there is no damage to the ground floor of the said R.C.C. building and the appellant had no right to dismantle the ground floor and construct multistoried building on the land of the said respondents; (iv) for declaration that the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 had right, title and interest over their respective land and shop premises, which cannot be curtailed by the defendants; for cost, etc. The said suit was filed on 22.12.2015.

5. From the order impugned herein, it appears that on 05.02.2016, the learned Govt. Pleader had filed petition bearing No. 143/16, stating that the suit was barred under Section 71 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. As per the order, although no specific petition was filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC , it is recorded that both sides had fairly conceded that the Court can hear the parties on