Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Manish Choudhury
Hajarat Syed Nabiullah Aolia Mazahar Tomb – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India Rep By The General Manager Of N F Railway Maligaon – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges eviction order (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioners challenge eviction order under article 226. (Para 2) |
| 3. arguments regarding prior title suit (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 4. consideration of rules under public premises act (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 5. procedural aspects of eviction process (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. criteria on applying public premises act (Para 13 , 14) |
| 7. writ jurisdiction and availability of alternate remedy (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 8. conclusion on petition's maintainability (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
Manish Choudhury, J.
The petitioners have instituted the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail an Order of Eviction dated 04.04.2025 passed by the respondent no. 4, whereby, the respondent no. 4 has ordered for eviction of the petitioner no. 2 and all persons who may be in occupation of the concerned public premises or any part thereof within a period of fifteen days from the date of publication of the said Order. In the Schedule to the said Order of Eviction, the description of the concerned public premises with boundaries have been mentioned.
2. I have heard Mr. K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K. Gogo
The High Court will not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 when an effective alternative remedy exists, unless there are violations of fundamental rights or principles of natural justice.
Eviction proceedings under the Public Premises Act cannot resolve bona fide title disputes, which must be adjudicated in a civil court, ensuring respect for legal authority and due process.
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to natural justice principles and proper procedural considerations in eviction proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Public Premises Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the dispute between the petitioners' claim as landholders and the claim of unauthorized occupation by the Estate Officer should be decided by ....
Unauthorized occupation of public premises does not confer legal rights; eviction proceedings must adhere to statutory requirements, and alleged violations of natural justice must be substantiated.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the lack of authority of the Estate Officer and the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The main legal point established is that the nature of the right claimed and the absence of mention of agreement termination in eviction notices determine the applicability of the Public Premises (Ev....
Compliance with the order of the Division Bench, sufficiency of opportunity of hearing, and the requirement for documentary evidence to support claims of title.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
