Back
DEVASHIS BARUAH
Biswajit Dey S/o. Late Kanai Lal Dey – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam Represented By The Commissioner And Secretary To The Government of Assam, Guwahati Development Department – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The two writ petitions as well as the contempt application are taken up for final disposal by this common judgment and order.
2. The Petitioner in WP(C) No.6675/2017 claims that the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup had acquired land at Paltan Bazar belonging to the Shah Family for opening a market. The Petitioner’s mother Late Renu Kana Dey was running a shop since 1960 in the said market. Thereupon, the State Authorities developed the said land and was called Municipal Market and after the coming into effect of the Guwahati Municipal Corporation Act, 1971, the market was constituted as a Guwahati Municipal Corporation Market. It has been specifically stated that the Petitioner’s mother was allotted Room No.17 at that point of time. However, there is no document enclosed to the writ petition in that regard.
3. It is also relevant to mention that the said land wherein the Petitioner claims that a room was allotted to the mother of the Petitioner is part of a land measuring 3 Kathas 8 Lechas covered by Dag No.3217 under K.P. Patta No.397 of Sahar Guwahati Paltan Bazar, Part, Mouza Ulubari which was re-numbered as Dag No.564 of draft Patta No.95. A litigation was fought amongst
The court emphasized that the eviction was carried out in accordance with the law and court directions, and the petitioners had not provided evidence of prior allotment by the GMC.
When there are two competing claims, one rooted in public interest and another relates to the protection of the rights of the individual, the cause of the public interest must be considered as overwh....
The court clarified the application of Section 7 of the Act, 1961, and emphasized the importance of consistent and substantiated claims in land ownership and possession disputes.
The court affirmed that the failure to allot equivalent land or provide compensation for lost property violates Article 300-A of the Constitution.
Point of Law : High Court shall not go into any question arising out of the disputed facts - Respondents cannot be permitted to both approbate and reprobate.
Point of Law : High Court shall not go into any question arising out of the disputed facts - Respondents cannot be permitted to both approbate and reprobate.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
