Gauhati High Court
Sakuntala Devi vs The Union Of India And 4 Ors on 16 June, 2021
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010092902021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3051/2021
SAKUNTALA DEVI
W/O LAKSMAN PRASAD GUPTA
RESIDENT OF WEST NAMBARI, MALIGAON, GUWAHATI 781011,
KAMRUPM ASSAM
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS.
THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF
RAILWAY, RAIL BHAWAN, NEW DELHI
2:THE GENERAL MANAGER (CONSTRUCTION )
NF RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI
781011
3:THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEEER
MALIGAON
NF RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI
781011
4:THE ESTATE OFFICER
NF RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI
781011
5:THE INSPECTOR OF WORKS
Page No.# 2/4
RAILWAY
NF RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI
78101
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S P ROY
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NF RLY
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
ORDER
16.06.2021
Heard Mr. S. P. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. I
have also heard Mr. Brijesh Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, N. F. Railway,
appearing on behalf of the respondents.
The petitioner herein claims to be in occupation of a plot of land since
the year 1960. Apprehending eviction from the said plot of land by the Railway
authorities without following the due process of law, the petitioner has
approached this Court by filing the present writ petition seeking an order of
protection.
By referring to the materials available on record, Mr. S. P. Roy, learned
counsel for the writ petitioner, submits that the Estate Officer of the N. F. Railway
had earlier served eviction notice upon the petitioner under the provision of
Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
The eviction notice was challenged by the petitioner by preferring a statutory
appeal before the learned District Judge, Kamrup(M), Guwahati. By the
Page No.# 3/4
judgment and order dated 19.01.2019 the appeal was allowed and the matter
was remanded back to the Estate Officer to pass a fresh order after setting
aside the eviction notice. Mr. Roy submits that unless the action contemplated
by the judgment and order dated 19.01.2019 passed by the learned District
Judge, Kamrup(M), is completed in accordance with law, the petitioner cannot
be evicted from the plot of land under her occupation. Hence, the present writ
petition.
Mr. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, N. F. Railway, has produced a
copy of the written instruction dated 16.06.2021, a perusal of which goes to
show that the Railway authorities had crried out measurement of a different
plot of land for carrying out certain constructions. Mr. Sharma submits that
there is no move to evict the petitioner from the plot of land under her
occupation and therefore, this writ petition is based on apprehension which is
wholly unfounded. Mr. Sharma, however, does not dispute the proposition that
till such time, a fresh order in terms of the judgment and order dated 19.01.2019
passed by the learned District Judge, Kamrup(M) is issued by the Estate Officer,
the possession of the petitioner over the plot of land in question cannot be
disturbed by the respondents. If that be so, there is no surviving cause of action
in the writ petition at this point of time for adjudication by this Court.
As such and as agreed to by the learned counsel for both the sides, this
writ petition is hereby disposed of at the motion stage by providing that the
possession of the petitioner over the plot of land shall not be disturbed by the
respondent authorities except by following the due process of law, as indicated
in the judgment and order dated 19.01.2019 passed by the learned District
Judge, Kamrup(M).
Page No.# 4/4
The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the written instruction dated 16.06.2021 be retained in the
record of this case.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
