The main legal point established in the judgment is that while patta land owners cannot be evicted without following due process of law, they have no right to encroach upon Government lands.

JUDGMENT :

Both the writ petitions are taken up together taking into account the similarity of the issues and the parties being same.

2. It is the case of the Petitioners that the Petitioner No. 1 namely Chitra Lekha Thakuria is the owner of a plot of land measuring 2 kathas 5.94 lechas covered by Dag No. 457 and included in K.P. Patta No. 47 at Dakhingaon Revenue Village under Beltola Mouza of Dispur Revenue Circle and have permanent structures standing thereon. The Petitioner No. 2 namely Prava Mahanta Choudhury is one of the land owners of the land measuring 5.35 Are covered by Dag No. 2865 and included in K.P. Patta No. 1131 at Dakhingaon Revenue Village under Beltola Mouza of Dispur Revenue Circle and have permanent structures standing thereon. Both the lands as per the Petitioners are adjacent to Dakhingaon Road which connects Dindayal Upadhaya Path from Dakhingaon Bus Stop Tiniali point with Lalganesh Lokhra Road at Sonaighuli point. It is the further case of the Petitioners that in the plot of land of the Petitioner No. 1 there is a hardware shop namely “Shivam Hardware” having permanent structures and in the land of the Petitioner No. 2 she also have one shop having permanent structures. It is the further case of the Petitioners that the Petitioners could come to learn that the PWD of the Government of Assam had approved a scheme for construction of drain as well as the widening of Dakhingaon Road connecting Dindayal Upadhaya Path from Dakhingaon Bus Stop Tiniali point with Lalganesh Lokhra Road at Sonaighuli point. It is also the case of the Petitioners that they could come to learn that the estimated width of the said road would be 7.50 metres. It is the further case of the Petitioners that in order to widen the said road, the contractor who was awarded the construction of the drainage on both sides of the road forcefully acquired lands in some places 40 feet and in some places 45 feet. The Petitioners objected to the said action of the contractors and told them that without payment of compensation and acquisition of the said land by following the due process, the said land cannot be taken over from the Petitioners. It is under such circumstances that the Petitioners apprehending that there would be an eviction drive by which the Petitioners would lose their lands and no payment of compensation would be made, have approached this Court seeking various reliefs including that if there is any construction of road and drainage system, the Respondent Authorities are required to acquire the lands from the Petitioners and also pay the compensation in terms with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in (Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement) Act, 2013. The Petitioners fearing that the Respondent Authorities shall take steps without following the due process, the W.P.(C ) No. 7722/2018 was filed. It is also seen from the grievances set out in the writ petition that there is an allegation that the Respondents are constructing the road and drainage in the Dakhingaon road but in the process have entered into the patta lands of the Petitioners.

3. On 12.12.2018, this Court had issued notice and in the meanwhile, directed that no constructions shall be carried out by the Respondents over the patta lands of the Petitioners without acquiring the land in accordance with law and/or without proper measurement. It further reveals that pursuant to the order dated 12.12.2018, a notice dated 06.04.2019 was issued to the Petitioner No. 1 stating inter alia by the Circle Officer, Dispur Revenue Circle that the demarcation was done on 09.01.2019 on the land covered by Dag No. 458 under Beltola Mouza, Village – Dakhingaon by the PWD under the “Mission Flood Free Scheme” to construct the drainage. It was also mentioned that the Petitioner No. 1 was illegally possessing some portion of the land in Dag No. 458 which was a Government land for which the Petitioner No. 1 was directed to vacate the movable/imm