Authorities should consider all relevant factors and pass specific orders before taking coercive action, especially when there are disputed questions of fact.

Headnote:
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged a dispossession notice issued by the respondent, alleging unauthorized possession of government land. The petitioner claimed to be in possession of a different survey number and had obtained an injunction order from the Civil Court.
Finding of the Court:

The court noted that the petitioner had filed a reply to the show cause notice and directed the respondent to consider the reply and pass a specific order before proceeding further.
Issues: Whether the respondent could issue a dispossession notice despite the injunction order obtained by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent should consider the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice and pass a specific order before taking any coercive action. The court also directed that no coercive action should be taken for a period of 7 days to allow the petitioner to approach an appropriate forum for adjudication of disputed facts.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with directions to the respondent to consider the petitioner's reply and pass a specific order before proceeding further.

ORDER

The present petition has been filed challenging the dispossession notice dated 16.02.2024 issued by respondent No.2 whereby the respondent No.2 has intimated that the petitioner is in unauthorized possession of government land in Survey No.248 and explanation has been called why he should not be forcefully dispossessed and why order for civil jail be not passed against him.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier also similar notice was issued to the petitioner alleging that he is in possession of government land in Survey Nos.225, 249 and 248 but actually he is in possession of Survey No.250. It is further contended that the Civil Court has already passed the injuction order in favour of the petitioner on 22.12.2023 but still the respondents are issuing repeated notice.

3. On perusal of the record, it is apparent that the petitioner had filed reply to the show cause notice and it seems to be pending before the respondent No.2.

4. Considering the aforesaid situation, I am inclined to direct the respondent No.2 to take the said reply into consideration and pass specific order thereon (if not already passed) before proceeding further. In case any adverse order passed against the petitioner, no coercive action shall be taken for a period of 7 days, so as to enable the petitioner to approach a Forum whether disputed question of facts can be adjudicated.

5. With the aforesaid direction, this petition stands disposed of. (VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE Prar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document