IMPORTANT POINT
The Court affirmed that occupancy rights cannot be established merely through municipal connections or claims of government land without supporting evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Devashis Baruah, J.

Heard Mr. G. Pathak, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned CGC appearing on behalf of the Railway Authorities.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the eviction proceedings initiated against the Petitioner under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short, “the Act of 1971”) as well as the judgment dated 19.06.2024 passed in Misc. Appeal No.4/2016 by the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, (FTC) No.3, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati.

3. From a perusal of the materials on record, it is seen that the Estate Officer of the N.F. Railway had issued two notices under Section 4 of the Act of 1971 to Shri Dulal Chandra Roy who is the husband of the Petitioner. Both the notices were in respect to different plots. In Eviction Case No. EO/MLG/4514/2015, the land in question was Plot No.1, 2 (Cat-1) and in Eviction Case No. EO/MLG/4515/2015, the land in question was plot No. 3, 4, 5 (Cat-1). To the said notices, the husband of the Petitioner duly submitted replies. Pursuant to the said replies and upon examination of the documents vide two separate orders both dated 09.02.2016 in both eviction cases, the Estate Officer directed the husband of the Petitioner to vacate the land in question.

4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner herein who is the wife of the said Shri Dulal Chandra Roy filed an appeal being Misc. Appeal No.4/2016 challenging both the orders of eviction. In the said appeal, the Petitioner as appellant submitted that the land is a Government khas land and not the Railway land and in that regard, she had applied for settlement of the said plot of land before the District Revenue Authority of the Government of Assam. It is the further case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner has been residing in the said plots of land since 1980 by constructing dwelling houses and the houses have been given municipal holding by the GMC Authorities. In addition to that, the Petitioner has also an electricity connection provided by the APDCL Authorities. The Petitioner further assailed the order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice.

5. The Railway Authorities challenged the maintainability of the said appeal on two grounds. First, Shri Dulal Chandra Roy did not assail the orders of eviction and as such the orders passed in the two eviction proceedings had attained finality. Secondly, filing of one single appeal against two separate orders of eviction in two separate proceedings was not permissible. It is seen from the judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court dated 19.06.2024, that the learned First Appellate Court did not find merit in both the questions as regards the maintainability of the appeal and as such decided the said appeal on merits. On merits, the learned First Appellate Court came to a finding that the orders passed by the Estate Officer dated 09.02.2016 in both the eviction proceedings were in accordance with law and did not require any interference and accordingly dismissed the appeal on merits vide the judgment dated 19.06.2024. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed.

6. This Court while entertaining the writ petition on 30.08.2024 and finding prima facie there being no illegality in the impugned order provided an opportunity to the Petitioner to file an undertaking if they wanted some reasonable time to vacate and accordingly, fixed the matter today. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted to the Petitioner is not inclined to submit any undertaking and as such submitted that the matter be decided on its own merits.

7. Taking into account the above, let this court therefore take note of the respective submission of the parties.

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Respondent Railway Authorities have singled out the Petitio