RAJIB LOCHAN BORAH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are aggrieved by the decision to allot a plot of land under the possession of the petitioners to the Respondent No. 5, namely Rajib Gandhi Co-operative University (newly impleaded). The projected case of the petitioners is that they are in possession over the land in question covered by dag No. 67 (part) which has been earmarked as Demow Pather Grazing Revenue land of Mouza-Halguri. The petitioner also claimed that they are paying Touzi Bahira against such occupation. The further fact, as revealed in the petition is that the petitioners had submitted applications of settlement of the land in their favour which are still pending. In fact, according to the petitioners, there were certain move to allot the plot of land to the petitioners which however did not materialise. On the contrary, the petitioners were issued eviction notices but no eviction in fact had taken place and they were still in possession till the year 2010 when the petitioners were evicted from part of the land under their possession for the purpose of establishing the Rajib Gandhi Co-operative University. The said allotment along with the contemplatation to evict the petitioners from the remaining part of the land are the subject matter of dispute raised in this writ petition.

(2.) Shri Borthakur, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the lands under the petitioners are in their possession from the days of their predecessor and they are legally entitled for a fair consideration for settlement of the land. The learned counsel also submits that by paying the Touzi Bahira regularly they have not defaulted in any manner. The learned counsel further submits that eviction of the petitioners to establish the Respondent No.5 University was without any notice and therefore the same is bad in law.

(3.) Shri Borthakur, learned Counsel has however fairly submitted that though initially there was a stay order, the same was vacated and presently the Respondent No.5 is in occupation of the land from which the petitioners were evicted.