Eviction orders lacking reasons violate principles of natural justice; petitioners must be allowed to submit individual representations.

JUDGMENT :

Devashis Baruah, J.

Heard Mr. K. K. Mahanta, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. P. Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3; Ms. M. Barman, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4, 6 & 7 as well as Mr. J. Chutia, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.5.

2. 32 petitioners have joined together to file the instant writ petition challenging the eviction proceedings so initiated against them by the respondent Nos.6 & 7 at the behest of the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3.

3. The petitioners herein claim that since 1970 onwards, they have been in occupation of respective plots of land in Ward No.4, Bokajan thereby running their livelihood of their families through stationery, grocery, medicine, tea stall, hardware, photoshop, photo studio, shoe shop, etc. by constructing wooden shops with CI sheets having valid trade licenses from the Karbi Anglong Autonomous District Council as well as from the local authority, i.e. Bokajan Town Committee under the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council. In the year 2011-12, notices were issued under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short, “the Act of 1971”) asking the petitioners to show cause as to why they should not vacate the lands in their possession as the same fell within the ambit of public premises as defined in Section 2 (e) of the Act of 1971. The materials on record so placed by Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 does not show that the petitioners as well as the other persons to whom notices were issued had submitted any reply. It further transpires that pursuant thereto, certain orders were passed under Section 5 of the Act of 1971 by the respondent No.3 thereby directing the petitioners along with others to vacate their possession from the land under their possession. The petitioners herein along with various others formed an Association in the name and style of “Bokajan Sarbajanin Kalibari Samiti” which was a Society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The said Society filed a writ petition before this Court which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.4143/2012. The said writ petition was disposed of on 31.08.2012 thereby granting liberty to the Society to avail the Appellate Forum, i.e. an Appeal under Section 9 of the Act of 1971 on or before 07.09.2012. It further appears from the records placed by Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned Standing Counsel that the said Society through its Secretary filed an appeal which was registered and numbered as Misc.(Civil) Appeal No.5/2012. In addition to the said Appeal being Misc.(Civil) Appeal No.5/2012, another Appeal was filed which was registered and numbered as Misc.(Civil) Appeal No.1/2015.

4. During the course of hearing, Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 placed before this Court the judgment and order passed by the learned Court of the District Judge Karbi Anglong in both Misc. (Civil) Appeal No.5/2012 and Misc.(Civil) Appeal No.1/2015. The Appeal so filed being Misc.(Civil) Appeal No.5/2012 was dismissed primarily on the ground that the Memo of Appeal was totally silent as to who were the members of the Appellant Society who were served with the eviction notices issued by respondent No.3 herein. It was also opined that there was no documents on record showing that any member of the Appellant Society was served any notice under Section 4 of the Act of 1971 or any eviction order passed under Section 5 of the Act of 1971. In Misc.(Civil) Appeal No.1/2015, the Court of the learned District Judge, Karbi Anglong vide the judgment and order dated 06.11.2017 dismissed the Appeal opining that the impugned orders so passed were not passed by the Estate Officer. It was further opined that an appeal lies befo