Point of Law: Only land which is at the disposal of the Government and as per the Regulation of 1886 the term “Government” would mean the “State Government”

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Ms. N. Saikia, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned Standing counsel for the Revenue Department, Dr. B.N. Gogoi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Railway authorities, Ms. M. Barman, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent/State as well as Mr. S.C. Biswas, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Railway authorities.

2. All the writ petitions relates to similar facts and question of law and as such all the 4 writ petitions are taken up for disposal together.

3. The claims of the petitioners in the said writ petitions are that the petitioners since 1960 have established a market on an unutilized vacant plot of land beyond the railway boundary by clearing the jungles and developing at their own cost by filling up the earth etc and the petitioners as well as their ancestors have since then been running small businesses till date. The petitioners have also been issued trade licenses from the Hojai Municipal Board. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the petitioners have been earning their livelihood from the small businesses carried out by them in respect to a plot of land covered by Dag No. 465 which as per the petitioners is a Government land. Till the year 2006 there was no disturbance from any quarters. However in the year 2006 the Estate Officer, NF Railway, Lumding initiated eviction proceedings under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short the Act of 1971). The petitioners submitted their objections to the said show cause notices. However, the Estate Officer of the NF Railway passed order under Section 5 of the said act of 1971 for eviction of the petitioners. Accordingly the petitioners filed respective appeals under Section 9 of the Act of 1971 before the District Judge, Nagaon. In all the said appeals, the District Judge, Nagaon set aside and quashed all the eviction orders with a direction to the Estate Officer, NF Railway to ascertain first whether the land in occupation of the petitioners was in fact the Railway land or not and after ascertainment if the land is found to be Railway land then to start eviction proceedings afresh as per the procedure prescribed by law by maintaining proper records.

4. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the said judgment passed in the appeal by the District Judge there was no challenge by the respondent Railway authorities. Thereupon the Estate officer of the NF Railway again issued notices to the petitioners to which the petitioners had also submitted their replies. It is relevant to take note that in the meantime the petitioners ascertaining that the land in question belong to the Government of Assam sought for allotment by filing various representations before the Revenue Department as well as also before the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon. As the Respondent Authorities i.e. the Revenue Department as well as the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon did not take any steps as regards the representations for settlement/allotment of the land in favor of the petitioners all these 4 writ petitions have been filed seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus to direct the State respondents to allot/settle the land in respect to Dag No. 465 in favor of the petitioners. At this stage it may be relevant to take note of that all these applications filed for allotment/settlement are not in terms with the provisions of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 (for short, the Regulation of 1886) and there is no mention in any of the representations as to how much each of the petitioners is seeking allotment. Pursuant to the filing of the writ petition, this Court had issued notice and the respondent authorities including the respondent/Railway have also filed their affidavit-in-opposition in the said writ petitions.

5. During the pendency of the writ petitions various interlocutory applications have been filed o