RAJU SARKAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri K. Gogoi, learned C.G.C. appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2, Shri A. Bhattacharyya, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department appearing for respondent no. 4 and Ms. K. Phukan, learned State Counsel appearing for respondent no. 5-Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh.

(2.) The revisionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been sought to be invoked in this present petition whereby a challenge has been made to a judgment and order dtd. 5/1/2023 passed by the learned District Judge, Dibrugarh acting as the Appellate Authority under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. The appeal was preferred under Sec. 9 of the said Act against a notice of demolition and vacation dtd. 31/12/2016 issued by the Colonel, Officiating Administrative Commandant for Station Commander under Sec. 5 (B) (1) of the Act. The eviction notice was issued after giving show cause.

(3.) Shri Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is a civil suit instituted by the petitioners along with others for declaration of right, title and interest over the plot of land in question which is pending. Under those circumstances, if the petitioners are evicted from the plot of land in question, not only grave prejudice and inconvenience would be caused to them, their entire suit would be frustrated. The learned counsel has also cited two earlier instances where similarly situated persons had approached the Appellate Authority under Sec. 9 of the Act in which the learned District Judge, Dibrugarh had interfered and allowed the appeal by holding the eviction orders to be not tenable in law. It is further submitted that in one of the orders dtd. 10/4/1974, the learned District Judge acting as the Appellate Authority had also observed that the appellant cannot be put to trouble again by issue of fresh notices. Shri Ahmed, the learned counsel submits that though the present petitioners were not amongst those appellants, they are similarly situated as the plot of land involved is adjacent and forms part of the large plot. He accordingly submits that interference is required at least to such stage till the civil suit is disposed of.