Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 1106
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.
Motilal Sarma, S/o. Late Siva Lal Sarma – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam, Represented By The Commissioner And Secretary To The Government Of Assam And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No.3748 Of 2023
Decided On : 09-05-2025
For the Petitioner: Mr. P.P. Das, Mr. Surajit Das.
For the Respondent: SC, Revenue, Mr. B.C. Kalita, Mr. A.K. Bharali, GA, Assam.
Eviction of a person from land without lawful authority violates constitutional rights, necessitating restoration of possession and compensation for illegal actions by state officials.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 21 and 300A - Illegal eviction - Petitioner was unlawfully evicted from land by authorities without any decree; eviction was based on a misinterpretation of a previous dismissal of the suit - Courts held that the action of the state officers was illegal and needed correction. (Paras 6, 9, 10)
(B) Writ jurisdiction - Authority of state officials - Circle Officer acted beyond jurisdiction by evicting without court direction, violating legal rights of the citizen. (Paras 9, 14)
(C) Compensation - Court awarded costs of Rs. 2,00,000/- for failure to protect citizens' rights due to state’s actions. (Paras 16, 17)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner claimed ownership of land; after dismissal of prior suit, he was forcibly evicted by state officials citing non-existent court orders.
Findings of Court:
Court found the eviction illegal and restored possession of the land to the petitioner; highlighted the importance of lawful authority in eviction actions.
Issues: Whether eviction justified under law; legitimacy of state officials' actions based on previous court order.
Ratio Decidendi: Court emphasized the requirement of an executing court’s directive for eviction and maintained that unlawful actions by officials infringe constitutional rights.
Result: Petitioner awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- as costs, possession restored.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of ownership dispute and eviction (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. court's evaluation of illegal eviction (Para 6 , 9) |
| 3. authorities' failure to justify actions. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. court's order and consequences for non-compliance (Para 10 , 11 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 19) |
| 5. principles regarding illegal eviction and possession restoration (Para 12 , 13) |
| 6. conclusion and orders regarding compensation and future measures. (Para 15 , 18) |
JUDGEMENT :
(ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.)
1. Heard Mr. S. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.H. Sarma, learned Government Advocate, Assam, for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. No appears for the respondent No.4, though the name of the learned counsel for the said respondent is reflected in the cause list.
2. The case of the petitioner in a nutshell is to the following effect :
(i) The petitioner herein is the owner of a plot of land, measuring 2 Bighas, covered by Dag Nos. 20 & 21 under Patta No. 9 situated at Village- Nalaghat Nonke, Mouza- Boko, District- Kamrup, Assam. Along with the said 2 Bighas, the petitioner was also adversely possessing another plot of land, measuring 3 Kathas, 1 Lecha covered by Dag No. 60 under Patta No. 190 situated at Village-Langkona Mouza- Boko, District- Kamrup belonging to one Sukumar Sarkar.
(ii) In the year 2013, the respondent No.4, Dilip Kumar Rabha, tried to grab the said 3 Kathas, 1 Lecha land, claiming to have purchased the same from the son of Sukumar Sarkar.
(iii) Therefore, the petitioner filed Title Suit No. 378/2014 before the Court of Munsiff, Amingaon, Kamrup, praying for declaration of his right, title and interest over the said land against the respondent No.4, Dilip Kumar Rabha. The respondent No. 4 also filed a counterclaim therein.
(iv) The learned Court of Munsiff, Amingaon, Kamrup after considering the shreds of evidence of both sides, passed judgment and order dated 30.09.2019 dismissing the suit of the petitioner as well as the counterclaim filed by the respondent No. 4.
(v) On 01-02-2021, the respondent No.3, Circle Officer, Boko Revenue Circle, Boko, along with the office staff and the police personnel from Boko Police Station, arrived at the suit land and forcefully evicted the petitioner there from by demolishing the houses and other structures standing thereon. When the petitioner asked reason behind such action, the respondent No.3, the Circle Officer and other officials, they informed him that in pursuance of the judgment and order dated 30.09.2019 passed by the learned Court of Munsiff, Amingaon in Title Suit No. 378/2014, they have evicted the petitioner from the suit land to hand over the possession of suit land to the respondent No.4. However, no such order was passed by the learned Munsiff as the suit as well as the counter claim wrere dismissed.
(vi) Therefore, it is alleged that the petitioner was illegally evicted from the suit land by the respondent authorities, wrongly citing the learned Munsiff Court’s order. Finding no alternative, the petitioner has preferred this petition.
3. It is on record and not disputed by the State respondents that a Notice under No. BRC4/2020/62 dated 25.01.2021 was issued by the then Circle Officer, Boko Revenue Circle, Boko, respondent No. 3 addressing the respondent No. 4, informing him that the possession of the subject land, shall be handed over to the respondent No. 4 on 01.02.2021 at 11:00 AM in terms of the order dated 30.09.2019 passed by the Court of Munsiff, Amingaon.
4. Another communication under No. BRC 4/2020/87 dated 30.01.2021 was issued to the Officer-in-Charge, Boko Police Station, Boko, asking the said Officer-in-Charge to remain present on 01.02.2021 at 11:00 AM in the subject land as the possession of the subject land shall be handed over to the respondent No. 4 on the said date, i.e., 01.02.2021. Accordingly, the possession of the subject land was handed over by the Circle Officer, Boko Revenue Circle, Boko, to the respondent No. 4. The fact of the initiation of the Suit by
