Madhu Parasad Sharmah vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 4616 Gua

                                                             Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010238732022




                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                             Case No. : WP(C)/7516/2022

         MADHU PARASAD SHARMAH
         SON OF RESHAMLAL SHARMA,
         RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- ULUBARI (BIRUBARI),
         DR. B.R. AMEDKAR NAGAR,
         MOUZA- ULUBARI, P.S.- PALTAN BAZAR,
         DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM.



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
         OF ASSAM,
         REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR,
         GUWAHATI-781006.

         2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
          KAMRUP(M)
          HENGRABARI
          GUWAHATI- 781036
         ASSAM.

         3:THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
          KAMRUP(M)
          (LAND SETTLEMENT BRANCH)

         HENGRABARI

         GUWAHATI- 781036.

         4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
          GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE
          ULUBARI
                                                                          Page No.# 2/4

             GUWAHATI- 781007

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR R DHAR

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

22.11.2022 Heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner who submits that the petitioner is occupying Government land measuring 17 lechas at Dag No.12 (old)/97 (new) in village-Ulubari (Birubari), Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Nagar, Guwahati under Ulubari Mouza.

The petitioner's grievance is that though the petitioner had submitted an application for settlement of the land on 19.02.2020 (Page No.18), and the Circle Officer, Guwahati Revenge Circle, Ulubari had made a proposal for settlement of the land, vide letter dated 16.03.2022, to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup Metropolitan District, Land Settlement Branch, no final decision has been taken by the respondents, with regard to the petitioner's application for settlement of land he is occupying.

The petitioner's counsel submits that till a decision is taken by the respondent authorities on the petitioner's application for settlement of the land, the petitioner should not be evicted, in terms of the judgment dated 28.05.2020 passed in WP(C) No.962/2022. The learned counsel for the petitioner accordingly submits that the impugned eviction notice dated 10.11.2022, which has directed him to vacate the land recorded in the name of T.B. Hospital should be kept in abeyance.

Page No.# 3/4

Ms. N. Bordoloi, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mr. M. Chetia, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4 submit that the present writ petition should be dismissed for non-disclosure of material facts. They submit that the land has been allotted to the T. B. Hospital on 13.07.1960 and as such the land cannot be settled with the petitioner. They also submit that as per letter No.GPS-80 dated 01.06.2016 issued by Mr. Anil Chandra Dutta, the Assistant Government Pleader, Kamrup (M), Assam, the petitioner had filed Title Suit No.226/2012 against the State and the T. B. Hospital which the Court of the Munsiff No.2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati dismissed on 03.03.2015

I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. A perusal of the writ petition shows that the petitioner has not made any averment to the effect that he had filed Title Suit No.226/2012 against the State and the T. B. Hospital and that the same had been dismissed by the Court of the Munsiff No.2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati on 03.03.2015. Further, in the case of K. D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and Others , reported in (2008) 12 SCC 481, the Apex Court held that the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is supposed to be fruitful, frank and open. He cannot be allowed to play hide and seek or to pick and choose facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of writ courts would become impossible. It further held that the Courts have inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of a case on merits. The Apex Court further held that if the court does not reject the petition on that ground, the court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant required to be dealt with for contempt of court, for abusing the process of the court.

Page No.# 4/4

In view of the fact of the petitioner has kept hidden the fact that his case against the T. B. Hospital, for settlement of the land he is illegally occupying has not been disclosed in the writ petition, this Court is not inclined to examine the case on merit any further. I have also seen the judgment dated 03.03.2015 passed by the Court of the Munsiff No.2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, dismissing Title Suit No.226/2012 with cost.

The judgment dated 28.05.2022 passed in WP(C) No.962/2020, which directs that if the land owners submit their applications for settlement, the eviction order should be kept in abeyance, is not attracted to the facts of this case. The reason being that the issue of settlement of the land has already been settled by the Court of Munsiff No.2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Title Suit No.226/2012.

In view of the reasons stated above, this Court is not inclined to examine the case on merit any further, especially when there is nothing left to examine. As the petitioner has played hide and seek with facts, cost of Rs.10,000/- is imposed upon the petitioner, which should be deposited with the Registry, within 1 (one) week from today. The cost should thereafter be disbursed to the State Legal Services Authority.

With the above, the instant writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant