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.

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. Gogoi, learned Central Government Counsel for all the respondents.

3. Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners had earlier instituted a title suit, Title Suit no. 84/1998 before the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, No. 2, Sivasagar for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of a plot of land measuring 2 Kathas situate at Old Loco Colony, N.F. Railway, Simaluguri, District – Sivasagar along with a portion of Quarter no. L/12[B] of the said premises [‘the suit land’ for short] on behalf of Mazahar of Hazarat Nabiullah Aolia and to restrain the defendants therein from entering the said suit land. Mr. Bhuyan has submitted that the respondent authorities herein were the defendants in Title Suit no. 84/1998. Though the defendants therein were duly served with summons, no written statement was submitted by them even after their appearance and as a result, the suit proceeded ex-parte against the defendants. The Title Suit was finally decreed ex-parte against the defendants by a Judgment and Order dated 06.12.2003 holding that the plaintiff was entitled to get a decree for settlement of the disputed land measuring 2 Kathas as mentioned above. The defendants thereafter, preferred an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 , Code of Civil Procedure [CPC] after much delay in the year 2015 for vacating the ex-parte Judgment and Order dated 06.12.2003, along with an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963. The application for under Order 9 Rule 13 r/w Section 151 , CPC that is, Petition no. 261/2015 was registered as Misc. [J] Case no. 07/2015. The learned Court found that the applicant failed to explain the period of delay of twelve years and by its Order dated 01.08.2016, dismissed the application filed under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963. In view of the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay, Misc.[J] Case no. 07/2015 registered on the basis of Petition no. 261/2015 under Order 9 Rule 13 r/w Section 151 , CPC was also dismissed. It is the contention of Mr. Bhuyan that the Judgment and Order dated 06.12.2003 had, thus, reached finality and the petitioners herein as the plaintiffs have acquired the rights over the plot of land mentioned therein.

4. Mr. Bhuyan has further submitted that the respondent no. 4 while passing the impugned Order, did not adhere to the principles of natural justice as the petitioners were not provided with a proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard. The petitioners were not given any notice to lead evidence during the proceedings. Had proper and reasonable opportunity been given the petitioners were in position to lead evidence to dislodge the claim of the Estate Officer, that is, th