Point of Law: It is a settled law that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court exercises a supervisory jurisdiction with the objective to keep the Subordinate Courts within its bound.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri K. Gogoi, learned C.G.C. appearing for the respondent nos. 1 & 2, Shri A. Bhattacharyya, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department appearing for respondent no. 4 and Ms. K. Phukan, learned State Counsel appearing for respondent no. 5-Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh.

2. The revisionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been sought to be invoked in this present petition whereby a challenge has been made to a judgment and order dated 05.01.2023 passed by the learned District Judge, Dibrugarh acting as the Appellate Authority under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. The appeal was preferred under Section 9 of the said Act against a notice of demolition and vacation dated 31.12.2016 issued by the Colonel, Officiating Administrative Commandant for Station Commander under Section 5 (B) (1) of the Act. The eviction notice was issued after giving show cause.

3. Shri Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is a civil suit instituted by the petitioners along with others for declaration of right, title and interest over the plot of land in question which is pending. Under those circumstances, if the petitioners are evicted from the plot of land in question, not only grave prejudice and inconvenience would be caused to them, their entire suit would be frustrated. The learned counsel has also cited two earlier instances where similarly situated persons had approached the Appellate Authority under Section 9 of the Act in which the learned District Judge, Dibrugarh had interfered and allowed the appeal by holding the eviction orders to be not tenable in law. It is further submitted that in one of the orders dated 10.04.1974, the learned District Judge acting as the Appellate Authority had also observed that the appellant cannot be put to trouble again by issue of fresh notices. Shri Ahmed, the learned counsel submits that though the present petitioners were not amongst those appellants, they are similarly situated as the plot of land involved is adjacent and forms part of the large plot. He accordingly submits that interference is required at least to such stage till the civil suit is disposed of.

4. Per contra, Shri Gogoi, the learned C.G.C. has submitted that a case for interference under Article 227 of Constitution of India would be made out only when there is any error of jurisdiction or the impugned judgment suffers from patent illegality or irregularity which is apparent on the face of the records. He submits that in the instant case the District Judge is the designated Appellate Authority under Section 9 of the Act and therefore, the question of any error in jurisdiction in deciding the appeal does not arise and in fact the same has also not been taken as a ground of appeal. It is submitted that the impugned order is an exhaustive one containing adequate reasons and based on the materials on record which are relevant to the issue and therefore there is no scope for interference with the same. Additionally, he submits that the requirement of the land is for greater public interest and the petitioners were unauthorized occupants against whom lawful orders of eviction has been passed.

5. Endorsing the submission of Shri Gogoi, learned C.G.C., Shri Bhattacharyaa, the learned Standing Counsel, Revenue has additionally submitted that the instances cited by the petitioners of two earlier cases pertain to different circumstances and cannot be equated with the present case. While the case decided in the year 1974 was mainly on the concessions given by the Government that the notices were withdrawn in the subsequent case, the Appellate Authority had come to a definite finding that there was violation of the procedure laid down in the Act and under those circumstances, interference was made and the said cases therefore cannot be cited as precedence in