ORDER

Heard Mr. S. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the P&RD as well as Mr. N. Das, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6.

2. By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the impugned notices dated 01.02.2024 issued by the Lumding Anchalik Panchayat, whereby the petitioners were directed to vacate their respective shop premises immediately.

3. It is pertinent to note that on 17.02.2024, while issuing notice, this Court had stayed the operation of the impugned notices/cancellation orders till the returnable date. The said interim protection was extended from time to time primarily on the ground that no opportunity of hearing had allegedly been afforded to the petitioners prior to cancellation of the allotments of the bhetis by the Lumding Anchalik Panchayat.

4. The brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioners were issued different allotment orders by the office of the Lumding Anchalik Panchayat, Bamungaon, Lanka, Hojai, whereby individual Patta Nos. and Bheti Nos. were allotted to them for running small shops at Nakhuti Bazar under the Lumding Anchalik Panchayat.

5. It is the case of the petitioners that although they had been carrying on their business since 2003, suddenly notices dated 01.02.2024 were issued by the Office of the Lumding Anchalik Panchayat intimating them that renovation and developmental works of the fish market were to be undertaken, and consequently directing them to vacate the shops immediately. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been filed.

6. Mr. S. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the impugned notices of cancellation were not preceded by any notice or opportunity of hearing and are therefore violative of the principles of natural justice. He further submits that since the petitioners had been allotted the bhetis and pattas had also been issued in their favour by the respondent authorities, against which taxes were being regularly paid, the respondent authorities could not have directed them to vacate the shops without affording an opportunity of hearing.

7. Per contra, Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the P&RD Department, submits that the allotments in favour of the petitioners were purely temporary in nature. He further submits that after the year 2021, the allotments were neither renewed nor were any taxes collected from the petitioners. It is further contended that the fish market is required to be modernized and developed in public interest and, accordingly, the petitioners were directed to vacate the premises. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the petitioners, being unauthorized occupants after expiry of the allotment period, cannot claim any vested right to continue in occupation or insist upon continuation of the allotment.

8. Likewise, Mr. N. Das, learned State counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 5 and 6, submits that the petitioners, having continued in occupation without any subsisting allotment after expiry of the pattas, cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

9. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials available on record.

10. It appears from the records that the petitioners were allotted different bhetis/pattas by the Lumding Anchalik Panchayat on the basis of their applications. The allotment orders clearly reveal that the allotments were temporary in nature and subject to various terms and conditions. One such allotment order issued in favour of petitioner No. 1 dated 13.11.2003 specifically stipulated that the allotment was temporary and liable to cancellation in the event of viola