SHRI BOA PENJI SON OF LATE BOA TOPUK RESIDENT OF P SECTOR ITANAGAR DISTRICT - PAPUM PARE(AP) Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ITANAGAR,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Ng. Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and also Mr.Raghumani, learned State Counsel.

(2.) THIS writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 08.12.2011 passed by the learned single Judge in WP(C) No. 767 of 2011 declining to interfere with the order dated 21.10.2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner/Estate Officer, Churachandpur for evicting the petitioner from the disputed land. It appears that the appellant, apprehending eviction from the land occupied by him, approached the learned Civil Judge, (Jr.Divn) Churachandpur in O.S.No. 10/2011 for declaration of his title to the land in question and for issuing temporary injunction to restrain the respondent No. 3 from carrying out the eviction process. The learned Civil Judge, by the order dated 23.08.2011 in Judl.Misc Case No. 18 of 2011 issued temporary injunction restraining the respondents from carrying out eviction process. Aggrieved by this, respondent No. 3 preferred Misc Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2011 from the order dated 23.08.2011 before the learned District Judge, Manipur West, which by the order dated 19.10.2011 stayed the injunction order of the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Divn), passed in Judl Misc Case No. 18 of 2011. Taking cue from this order, the respondent No. 3 thereafter issued the eviction notice requiring the appellant to dismantle his structures/building constructed on the land occupied by him immediately, failing which, he would be liable to pay penalty to the extent of 6 times the annual revenue of the land. The respondents accordingly resumed eviction/dismantling process of the appellant's land. This prompted the appellant to file WP(C) No. 767 of 2011 before this Court challenging the eviction notice dated 21.10.2011 with a prayer for directing the respondents to restore possession of the disputed land to him. The learned single Judge, as noted earlier, declined to interfere with the order of the respondent No. 3 and disposed of the writ petition by directing the learned District Judge, Manipur West to dispose of the Misc Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2011 within two weeks. Liberty was however granted therein to the appellant to agitate the points urged by him in the writ petition before the learned District Judge, Manipur West. Aggrieved by this, this writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

(3.) WE have given our anxious considerations to the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the rival parties. In our judgment, the sole question which falls for consideration is whether the respondent No. 3 has complied with the safeguards laid down by Section 15 of the Act read with Rule 18 of the Rules in launching the eviction proceedings and in evicting the appellant from the disputed land. Under Section 15 of the Act, there is no doubt that power is given to respondent No. 3 to evict unauthorized occupant/trespasser summarily. However, Rule 18 imposes obligation upon respondent No. 3 to issue notice to the alleged trespasser requiring him to show cause, within the period specified in the notice as to why he should not be evicted from the disputed land. A conjoint reading of the two provisions, amply makes it clear that prior notice is the sine qua non for issuing eviction order and that it is implicit in the nature of things to give an adequate opportunity to the alleged trespasser to effectively present his case or defend his case so that the right conferred therein is not rendered illusory. In other words, if sufficient time is not given, the spirit of Rule 18 will be violated. On going through the impugned order issued by respondent No. 3, we have no hesitation to hold that the provisions of Section 15 read with Rule 18 of the Rules have been violated by the respondent No. 3 while issuing the eviction notice and carrying out eviction order. This is illegal and cannot be sustained in law. We are fortified in our view by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Samir Ranjan Barman & Anr Vs District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura & Ors : : 2009 (1) GLT 465 in which it has been held that the power under Section 15 of the Act is summary in nature, but the exercise thereof has to comply with the requirement of Rule 18. The next question which falls for consideration is whether the appellant, who is now admittedly ousted from possession, can be allowed to reoccupy the disputed land. This legal point has also been settled by the same judgment in para 65 and 66 as under: