SADANAND CHATTERJEE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . Sunil Kumar Sinha, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that petitioner has challenged the notice dated 10.6.2008 (Annexure -2) issued. to the petitioner for removing alleged encroachment from the Railway land to the extent of 37' x 77'. He further submitted that the land in question belonged to the petitioner as per Khatiyan (Annexure -1) and, therefore, in view of the bona fide dispute, the Railway should have filed a suit.

(2.) MR . R.N. Roy, appearing for the respondents -Railways, on the other hand, submitted that Eviction Case No. E.L.I 140/BRKA/87 was started against the father of the petitioner in which order was passed by the Estate Officer (respondent no. 3) on 17.7.1989 for eviction from the land described in the schedule of the order measuring 1500 square feet being C.S. Plot No. 629, Mouza Barkakana, Khatiyan No. 15, as per the boundary given in the order. He further submitted that the land was allotted to Kendriya Vidyalaya and when the boundary of the school was going to be constructed, it was found that the petitioner has not obeyed/vacated the said land and, therefore, a notice dated 10.6.2008 was issued, as petitioner was bound by the order passed against his father. He further submitted that the. Khatiyan relied by the petitioner shows Khata No. 14, whereas, the said order was passed with regard to Khata No. 15 and, therefore., it cannot De said that there is bona fide dispute with regard to right, title, interest and possession between the parties.

(3.) IT appears that the father of the petitioner appeared in the said proceedings but did not produce any paper regarding the land in question, in spite of several opportunities, and ultimately, the case was heard on 19.12.1988 ex -parte. However, the order was passed on 17.7.1989. Therefore, it cannot be said that the said order was passed against the dead person.