IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the eviction of encroachers from waterbodies, emphasizing public interest and environmental protection over individual claims of prior occupation.

JUDGMENT :

Vijay Bishnoi, CJ.

Heard Mr. Anurag Tiwary, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in WA No.126/2023; Mr. U.S. Borgohain, learned counsel for the appellants in WA No.234/2023 and Mr. S. Borthakur and Ms. P. Borah, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in WA No.316/2023 and WA No.317/2023. Also heard Mr. N. Das, learned Government Advocate, Assam; Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue and Disaster Management Department and Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC), Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority (GMDA) and Department of Housing and Urban Affairs (DoHUA).

2. These writ appeals are preferred by the appellants being aggrieved with the impugned judgment dated 03.03.2023 and order dated 31.07.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in a bunch of writ petitions. Two of the writ appeals, being WA No.126/2023 and WA No.234/2023, are filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 03.03.2023, whereas other two writ appeals, being WA No.316/2023 and WA No.317/2023, are preferred against the order dated 31.07.2023.

3. The writ appellants approached the Writ Court being aggrieved with the eviction drive carried out by the respondents in respect of the land covered under the provisions of the Guwahati Waterbodies (Prevention and Conservation) Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to be as “Waterbodies Act, 2008”).

Vide the Waterbodies Act, 2008, the Government declared the areas of the land specified in Schedule I, II, III and IV as waterbodies.

4. Some of the writ petitioners argued before the learned Single Judge that their lands did not come under the land declared as waterbodies under the Waterbodies Act, 2008. However, some of the writ petitioners claimed that though their lands did fall in the areas declared as waterbodies under the Waterbodies Act, 2008, however, the provisions of the said Act would not apply in their cases as the Act was to be applied prospectively whereas these persons were very much in occupation of the said land prior to coming into force of the Waterbodies Act, 2008.

5. Certain other grounds were also taken by the writ petitioners such as that humane element had been wholly ignored wherein even minimum time was not given to the persons affected by the encroachment drives to vacate the lands. They also took the ground of non-following the provisions of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, 1886 (hereinafter to be referred as “Regulations of 1886”).

6. The State respondents resisted the claims of the writ petitioners and it was argued on behalf of the State that the eviction drive was not restricted to the action to be taken only under the Waterbodies Act, 2008 alone but the same was also in the nature of general eviction drive under the Regulation of 1886.

7. It was emphasized on behalf of the respondent State that it is a primary duty of the State to get the Government lands and the waterbodies encroachment free and the State is obliged to discharge the said duty of protecting the water bodies in the city and accordingly, the encroachment drive was carried out.

8. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the arguments advanced on behalf of the parities has concluded that since as per the categorical assertion of the learned Advocate General that the eviction drive was not only under the Waterbodies Act, 2008 but also a general eviction drive against all Khas land, grazing land etc., the Court is not persuaded to interfere.

9. The learned Single Judge has also found force in the contention made on behalf of the State that the eviction drive was for the larger public interest and has observed that it is settled position of law that larger public interest would override the private rights of an individual or a small section of individuals. It is further observed th