Page No.# 1/3 vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 643 Gua

                                                                  Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010065942022




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

                            Case No. : WA/123/2022

         MUKSED ALI AND 2 ORS.
         S/O MD. LAL MIAH
         VILLAGE NO. 2, PITULIBARI, PO CHARIALI, DIST BISWANATH, ASSAM,
         784176

         2: ATABAR RAHMAN @ ATABUR RAHMAN
          S/O KUBBAT ALI

         VILLAGE NO. 2
         PITULIBARI
         PO CHARIALI
         DIST BISWANATH
         ASSAM
         784176

         3: AHAN SHEIKH
          S/O NURJAMAL SHEIKH
         VILLAGE NO. 2
          PITULIBARI
          PO CHARIALI
          DIST BISWANATH
         ASSAM
          78417

         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.
         REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
         OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 06

         2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

          BISWANATH
          PO AND PS BISWANATH CHARIALI
                                                                          Page No.# 2/3

             DIST BISWANATH
             ASSAM
             784176

            3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER

             BISWANATH REVENUE CIRCLE

            PO AND PS BISWANATH CHARIALI
            DIST BISWANATH
            ASSAM
            78417

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. M A SHEIKH

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM




                                    BEFORE
                          HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

                                          ORDER

Date : 20-02-2023

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.03.2021, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 423/2020 preferred by the appellant, dismissing the writ petition by holding that the petitioners/appellants were encroachers of government land and therefore they did not have any right which can be enforced in the writ petition.

There is no dispute about the fact that the appellants were in occupation of government land. It appears from the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 2 that during the pendency of this proceeding the appellants have already been evicted from the government land and thereafter they have been shifted to another location, namely, No. 4 Chalia Village covered by Dag No. 94 under the Biswanath Mouza. From the affidavit of the respondent no. 2 it prima facie appears that the appellants have Page No.# 3/3

already been rehabilitated.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any good ground to entertain this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

                                        JUDGE                           CHIEF JUSTICE




Comparing Assistant