JALESWARI DEVI PASHWAN Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. G.P. Bhowmik, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H.K. Mahanta, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam.

(2.) THE petitioner claims to be an erosion affected person and contends that in between the Highway and the Dyke on the river Brahmaputra at Dibrugarh, a public bus stand was established by the Municipal authority in the year 1988. According to the petitioner, the Municipal authority had built up 25 stalls of pucca construction and had let out the same for the purpose of business to various persons. A number of shop houses of kutcha construction had also been raised by the Municipal authority and one such shop house was allotted to the petitioner measuring 15 x 12 feet. According to the petitioner, she has been running her business in the said shop house and maintaining herself and her family from the earnings therefrom. The petitioner claims to be in possession of the land for the last 10 years and also claims to have been regularly depositing the rent to the Municipal authorities. According to the writ petitioner, the Respondent No. 3 along with his subordinate staff and accompanied by some of the staff of the Deputy Commissioner's office, at Dibrugarh, came to the shop house on 29-11-97 and asked her to hand over vacant possession of the land by removing the shop house of the petitioner. The petitioner was threatened with forcible eviction in case she did not hand over possession of the land in question. On the basis of an apprehension of eviction on the aforesaid facts, the instant writ application has been filed.

(3.) HAVING regard to the grievances expressed by the writ petitioner, it will be wholly unnecessary as well as inappropriate for this Court to enter into any discussion with regard to the entitlement of the writ petitioner to retain possession of the shop premises. Even assuming that the writ petitioner has no right to remain in possession of the shop premises, the respondents will still have to follow the mandate of law which requires issuance of notice to the writ petitioner as well as to grant of prior opportunity to the writ petitioner before asking her to vacate the land in question. As the challenge herein is in respect of what appears to be absolutely unauthorised actions of the respondent authorities in trying to forcibly evict the writ petitioner, this Court has no hesitation in adjudging the aforesaid actions of the respondents to be wholly illegal. The writ petitioner, therefore, has to be protected by means of an appropriate writ of this Court. The writ petition accordingly, shall stand closed with the direction that the respondents, shall not disturb the possession of the writ petitioner save and except in accordance with law and after serving requisite notice and granting reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.