ATINDRA BHOWMIK Vs. AGARTALA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two principle reliefs, namely, (i) for directing the respondents No. 1 and 2 to remove the encroachments made by the respondents No. 3 to 8 on the 50 feet wide road and (ii) tor directing the same respondents to ensure the width of the road by proper supervision in compliance with the survey made by the joint survey team on 20.3.1996 (Annexure-LA) are claimed by the petitioner in this writ petition.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he has & residential house on his jote land situate at Dhaleswar, Agartala bordering the western boundary of Dhaleswar, Road No. 1 and is filing this writ petition to protect his own interest as well as the interest of others using the said road, which connects Jail Ashram Road with I.T.I., Indranagar. As he could not contact other affected persons and due to urgency, he has to file this petition alone. The petitioner claims that Dhaleswar, Road No.1 was constructed on the land acquired by the Government in 1970 and that by two subsequent acquisitions, the road was widened and by the last acquisition made in 1977, the road had attained a uniform width of 50 feet all through except for the 6 feet on the western boundary at the entry point from jail Ashram road, which has a total width of 45 fe:et. According to the petitioner, the initial point of the road had to be narrowed down to save the foundation of the existing pucca building of one Smt. Namita Debnath. It is also the case of the petitioner that the said road is an important road as it connects the eastern part of the town directly with the northern end i.e., G. B. Hospital etc. but on completion of the acquisition proceeding, the respondents No. 3 to 8 gradually encroached upon some portion of the road on either side bordering their respective holdings. The petitioner annexed to the writ petition a hand sketch map prepared by him with the help of a surveyor to point out the position of the road as per the land acquisition plan and the encroachments made over the years on either side thereof.

(3.) The petitioner further avers that in the year, 1995, when the respondent No. 1 took up the town improvement projects, it was, as part of the projects, decided to construct RCC drain from Joyguru Pharmacy in Dhaleswar road to Katakhal sluice gate in which the area starting from the initial point of the said road from Jail Ashram Road was covered in the Group-II work. The work order was allotted to one Sibhu Saha, a Contractor of Shibnagar with an estimated cost of Rs. 33,41,508/-. It is the further case of the petitioner that before the work could commence, he and other residents of the area considered it proper to get the boundary of the road demarcated due to sporadic encroachments by the private respondents thereon and, accordingly, requested the respondent No. 1 to cause proper demarcation of the same for keeping a clear 50 feet width all through. The respondent No. 1 thereupon fixed 20.3.1996 (10 am) for survey and demarcation of the road. The survey team after giving due notice to all concerned, undertook the survey and demarcated the western boundary by posting pillars, thereby indicating that the boundary on the eastern side would be 50 feet from the pillar posted on the western boundary, which is still in existence on the western flank of the road. According to the petitioner, the respondents No. 3 to 8 still refused to clear their encroachments whereupon they made representations to the various authorities to remove such encroachments but to no effect. It is the case of the petitioner that the map showing the position and formation of Dhaleswar Road No. 3 is available with the East Agartala Tehasil and the L. A. Collector and that the road in question was widened upto 50 feet in public interest by paying compensation to all concerned from public money, which cannot be narrowed by the encroachments of the private respondents. It is contended by the petitioner that the respondent No. 1 has a public duty to remove such encroachments before construction of the permanent R.C.C. drain. It is also stated by the petitioner that the respondent No. 1 is not following the measurement with reference to the posts and pegs posted by the joint survey team on 203-1996 by leaving the encroached lands to protect the interest of the private respondents. Hence, this writ petition.