Jay Prakash Prasad vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 4618 Gua

                                                                        Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010238692022




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

                                 Case No. : WP(C)/7510/2022

            JAY PRAKASH PRASAD
            S/O. LT. BISWANATH RAM, R/O. VILL. ULUBARI (BIRUBARI), DR. B.R.
            AMEDKAR NAGAR, MOUZA- ULUBARI, P.S. PALTAN BAZAR, DIST.
            KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
            REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
            REVENUE DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006.

            2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

             KAMRUP (M)
             HENGRABARI
             GUWAHATI-781036
             ASSAM.

            3:THE ADDL. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
             KAMRUP (M)
             (LAND SETTLEMENT BRANCH)
             HENGRABARI
             GUWAHATI-781036.

            4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
             GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE
             ULUBARI
             GUWAHATI-781007

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR R DHAR

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

Page No.# 2/3

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 1.97 Are 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.

Mr. M. Chetia, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4 and Ms. N. Bordoloi, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 are granted two weeks' time to obtain instructions, with regard to whether the petitioner's Page No.# 3/3

application for settlement has been rejected or allowed.

Additional copies of the writ petition should be furnished to respondents' counsel during the course of the day.

List on 01.12.2022.

Till then, the impugned eviction order should be kept in abeyance.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant