RAM BINOD RAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer sought for in the present writ petition is in the form of permanent injunction restraining the respondents to dismantle the structure or evict the petitioner from the plot of land covered under G.L.R. Survey Plot No. 138 situated at Jhalupara, Shillong Cantonment. It is an admitted case of the parties that G.L.R. Survey Plot No. 138 is situated within the Cantonment area. The case of the writ petitioner is that he is the grandson of (Late) Mothura Goala in whose name, the initial rent receipt in respect of G.L.R. Survey Plot No. 138 was issued by Special Military Estate Office, Assam Circle. After the death of (Late) Mothura Goala, his son i.e. father of the petitioner (Late) Puni Goala had paid the rent to the respondents by depositing the rent in the court. Petitioner's father (Late) Puni Goala expired on 18.08.2008. It appears from the pleadings and also from the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties that the petitioner/respondents had earlier approached this Court by filing Revision Petitions in the matter relating with the eviction proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.

(2.) IN the Revision Petition filed by the father of the present petitioner being Civil Revision Petition No. 2 (SH) 1989, the Guwahati High Court passed the judgment and order dated 31.03.1995 for allowing the Revision Petition by injuncting the respondents to evict the petitioner from the plot of land which he is occupying. The Gauhati High Court passed the said injunction order i.e. 31.03.1995 in Civil Revision Petition No. 2 (SH) 1989 in the matters relating with the proceeding under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The said order of the Gauhati High Court dated 31.03.1995 passed in Civil Revision Petition No. 2 (SH) 1989 is to be understood in the manner permissible by law. It is fairly well settled law that in the Revision Petition arising out of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, the Court cannot pass an order in the form of permanent injunction in favour of one of the parties without deciding the right and title of that party in that particular disputed land. The order passed by the Revision Petition should be understood in the context of the Revision Petition. This Court is not making any observation regarding the findings of the Gauhati High Court in the judgment and order dated 31.03.1995 passed in Civil Revision Petition No. 2 (SH) 1989.

(3.) IN the present writ petition, this Court is not deciding the serious disputed question of facts as to whether the G.L.R. Survey Plot No. 138 of the Defence land/Shillong Cantonment had been settled with the petitioner's predecessor (Late) Mothura Goala; however, this Court makes an observation that the Court cannot pass an order in the Revision Petition in the form of permanent injunction in a case for Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.