Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH
N.UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
Kunjalata Gogoi W/O Late Sunaram Gogoi – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam Represented By The Commissioner And Secretary, Department Of Revenue – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to eviction orders based on possession. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. petitioner's argument on jurisdiction and representation. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. eviction under public premises act legitimacy. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. discussion on preliminary objections raised. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. court's analysis of ownership and evidence. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. court's conclusion on lack of merit. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 7. final decision and opportunity for further proceedings. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT :
N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.
Heard Mr. L.N Dihingia, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D Chaliha, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 & 7 and Mr. N Deka, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3.
2. The petitioners, by way of instituting the present Writ Petition, has presented a challenge to orders dated 02.06.2023, passed by the Estate Officer, Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. (BVFCL) i.e. the respondent No. 7, directing the petitioners to vacate the plots of land under their possession.
3. The petitioners, in the Writ Petition, have projected that they were in occupation of Government lands since 1982 without any objection
The court upheld the eviction orders based on established ownership of land by the authorities and the petitioners' admission of unauthorized occupation, affirming the procedural compliance under the....
Possession alone does not confer entitlement to government land; prior rejections of settlement applications by the state are binding.
When there are two competing claims, one rooted in public interest and another relates to the protection of the rights of the individual, the cause of the public interest must be considered as overwh....
Continuous possession of government land does not confer ownership rights without legal entitlement; legal title is essential for adverse possession claims.
Adverse possession claims over government land require substantial evidence; mere long-standing possession does not confer title, particularly where public interest is involved.
Summary eviction under Public Premises Act, 1971, barred for bona fide title disputes; must be resolved via civil courts. GLR entries lack presumptive value over revenue records without notice and he....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and providing a reasonable opportunity for the parties to present their case.
The court ruled that eviction without a hearing violates the principles of natural justice and Article 21 of the Constitution.
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
