SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Gau) 1508

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
Rupjyoti Bora Buragohain W/O- Lt. Arup Bora And Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Assam Through The Commissioner And Secy., Revenue And Disaster Management And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C)/1156/2023, WP(C)/1229/2023, WP(C)/1159/2023, WP(C)/1256/2023, WP(C)/1113/2023
Decided On : 03-03-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. A Ganguly, Mr. D K Das
For the Respondent: GA, ASSAM
MR. M KHATANIAR

IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that eviction from khas land does not require prior notice under Rule 18(2) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, and emphasized the primacy of public interest in eviction actions related to environmental concerns.

Headnote:

EVICTION - Guwahati Waterbodies Act, 2008 and Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 - Sections 9 of the Guwahati Waterbodies (Prevention and Conservation) Act, 2008; Rule 18 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 - The court interpreted the Guwahati Waterbodies Act, 2008 as being prospective and not applicable to prior occupants. It emphasized the necessity of public interest in eviction actions, distinguishing between Rule 18(2) and Rule 18(3) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, where notice is not required for eviction from khas land. The court concluded that the eviction drive was justified due to the encroachment of waterbodies, which contributed to flooding in Guwahati.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners in five writ petitions challenged their eviction from government lands in Guwahati, claiming long-term occupation and municipal recognition. They argued that the lands were not reserved for public purposes and that the eviction process ignored their rights and hardships.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners were occupying khas land without legal authority and that the eviction was justified under the Guwahati Waterbodies Act, 2008 and the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. The court emphasized the public interest in restoring waterbodies to prevent flooding.

Issues: Whether the eviction of the petitioners was lawful under the Guwahati Waterbodies Act, 2008 and the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, and whether notice was required prior to eviction.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Waterbodies Act, 2008 is prospective and does not apply to prior occupants. It ruled that eviction from khas land under Rule 18(2) does not require notice, and public interest in restoring waterbodies outweighs individual rights.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions, allowing the eviction to proceed while granting petitioners the opportunity to seek reasonable time for vacating based on individual hardships.

JUDGMENT :

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

The writ jurisdiction of this Court has been sought to be invoked in these five writ petitions which have been filed with a similar cause of action. In the first writ petition, namely, WP(C)/1113/2023, vide an order dated 27.02.2023 an interim protection was granted and directed the matter to be listed on 03.03.2023. Two subsequent matters were moved on 28.02.2023 being, WP(C)/1156/2023 & 1159/2023 in which an order for analogous hearing on the motion stage with the earlier writ petition i.e, WP(C)/1113/2023 was fixed today. Further, it was observed that if the eviction was yet to be done, the same may not be carried out till the next date fixed i.e. 03.03.2023. Today, apart from the aforesaid writ petitions, two more writ petitions have been listed for motion being, WP(C)/1229/2023 & WP(C)/1256/2023. The principal challenge in all these writ petitions is against the action for eviction of the petitioners.

2. In the deliberations, which had commenced today, Shri D. Saikia, the learned Advocate General, Assam, clarified, at the outset that his argument would be based on the point of law and therefore, no affidavit-in-opposition is required to be filed. In that view of the matter, the writ petitions were taken up for disposal at the motion stage itself.

3. However, before going to the issue involved, it would be beneficial to record the facts of the cases in brief.

4. The petitioners in WP(C)/1113/2023, who are 3 in numbers, claim to be occupying small plots of Government lands in Village-Hengrabari, Mouza-Beltola, under Dispur Revenue Circle. They claim to have constructed residential houses and have been allotted Municipal holding numbers by the concerned authorities. The petitioners also claim to have given electricity connection. The petitioners claim that they are in occupation of the land since last 12 years and the lands neither reserved for any Government department, road or public purpose nor part of the Wetland of Silsako Fresh Water Lake.

5. The petitioners in WP(C)/1156/2023, who are 10 in numbers, claim to be the residents of Satgaon, under Mouza-Beltola, Revenue Circle-Dispur and have been in long and continuous possession of various plots of land covering various Dags, namely, Dag Nos. 182, 184, 185 & 186. As per the petitioners, the aforesaid lands are classified as residential and Khiraj Eksona and do not come under any water body as per the Guwahati Waterbodies (Prevention and Conservation) Act, 2008. The petitioner no.2, in this case, has further claimed that settlement application was made and that presently, her son's examination is also going on. The other petitioners also have claimed to have applied for settlement which has not been done. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the aforesaid dag numbers are outside the Silsako Beel.

6. There are 2 numbers of petitioners in WP(C)/1159/2023, who claim to have occupied Government land under Village-Mathgharia, Mouza-Beltola, Dispur Revenue Circle and claim to have been granted municipal holding numbers. They have also claimed to have applied for settlement of the land in question. Though in the synopsis a mention has been made regarding annual examination of the children of the petitioners, there is no such pleading in the writ petition.

7. In WP(C)/1229/202310, the petitioners, who are 10 in numbers, have joined together and have claimed to be occupying the Government lands of Village-Hengrabari, Mouza-Beltola, under Dispur Revenue Circle. The petitioners claim to have been granted municipal holding numbers and electricity connection to their houses and that their lands are not reserved for any Government department nor part of any Wetland.

8. There are 14 numbers of petitioners in WP(C)/1256/2023, who have claimed to be occupying the Government land of Village-Hengrabari, Mouza-Beltola, under Dispur Revenue Circle. The petitioners claim to have been granted municipal holding numbers and electricity connec

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top