MUKUT GUHA ROY Vs. NILAKANTA HAZARIKA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 13.5.94 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 4842/91. The learned Single Judge quashed the entire proceedings of Encroachment Case No. 6/85 and declared the eviction of the writ Petitioner No. 1 as illegal and without authority of law. In addition, the learned Single Judge also directed restoration of possession with the Petitioner No. 1 in respect of a plot of land measuring 1 katha 19 lechas appertaining to Dag No. 1318 of Patta No. 23 and Dag No. 1319 and 1320 of Periodic Patta No. 16. The learned Single Judge also directed the Respondents No. 1 to 5 to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/ -. Being aggrieved thereby, the Respondent No. 6, Sri Mukut Guha Roy has preferred this appeal on various grounds.

(2.) WE have heard Shri A.B. Chbudhury, the learned Counsel for the writ Appellant and Shri C.K.S. Baruah, the learned Counsel for the Respondents No. 1 and 2 and also heard the learned State counsel for the officers subordinate to the State.

(3.) THE Respondent Sri Nilakanta Hazarika's case before the learned Single Judge was that die above described land was originally owned and possessed by late Amina Khatun, mother of the writ Petitioner No. 2. She was also owner of other lands in the said two pattas. The writ Petitioner took possession of the disputed land on lease from Amina Khatun in the year 1971 on condition of payment of rent @ Rs. 100/ - per annum. After obtaining the lease, he had constructed as many as 7 numbers of houses with C.I. sheet and thatched roof. One of such houses was possessed by him for his residential purpose while the other houses were let out to different tenants. His uninterrupted possession since 1971 was disturbed by a notice dated 14.3.85 issued by the Sub -Divisional Officer, Tinsukia in connection with an Encroachment Case No. 6/85 under Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. By the said notice, the writ Petitioner was directed to vacate the entire lease -hold premises by removing his houses, crops, fencing etc. on the ground that the said plot of land was part of Government land and the writ Petitioner was in unauthorised occupation thereof. Immediately on 15.3.85, he had submitted an application before the SDO(C), Tinsukia informing him that the said land appertains to private patta land as stated above and, as such, he was not liable to be evicted since he was in occupation thereof as a lease under the original pattadar. Despite that, the Sub -Divisional Officer and the Sub -Deputy Collector, Respondent No. 4 & 5 respectively demolished all the houses on 8.4.85 and evicted the members of his family during his temporary absence. After eviction, the said land was handed over to the Appellant although the Appellant had no semblance of right, title or possession over the said land. On 16.4.85, the writ Petitioner submitted an application before the Sub -Divisional Officer raising objection to the arbitrary and illegal eviction. The SDO(C) issued a direction to the Assistant Political Officer, Margherita to cause an enquiry. The Assistant Political Officer in his report dated 27.7.90 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner submitted that the eviction was carried out in an illegal manner as the land appertained to private patta land and the writ Petitioner was in possession thereof. As no action was taken on the report submitted by the Assistant Political Officer the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed for issue of a Writ of Mandamus.