Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors on 6 January, 2025
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010082412021
2025:GAU-AS:133
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2989/2021
MAINA DAS
D/O. LT. GANGA RAM DAS, VILL. GUNUCHA, JAGIROAD, P.O. JAGIROAD,
MOUZA GOVA, P.S. JAGIROAD, DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS
REP. BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, RAILWAY BOARD,
RAILWAY BHAWAN, NEW DELHI.
2:THE GENERAL MANAGER
N.R. RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI-11
ASSAM.
3:THE ESTATE OFFICER
N.F. RAILWAY
LUMDING
ASSAM
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN-782447.
4:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI
ASSAM.
Page No.# 2/5
5:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
MORIGAON
P.O. MORIGAON
DIST. MORIGAON
ASSAM.
6:THE CIRCLE OFFICER OF MAYONG REVENUE CIRCLE
P.O. JAGI BHAKATGAON
DIST. MORIGAON
ASSAM
Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. GN Sahewalla, Senior Advocate
Ms. K Sarma
Advocate for the respondent(s): Ms. M Barman, Government Advocate
Mr. B Sarma, Standing Counsel
NF Railway
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
06.01.2025
Heard Mr. GN Sahewalla, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. K
Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. B Sarma,
the learned counsel appears on behalf of the NF Railways and Ms. M Barman,
the learned counsel appears on behalf of the District
Administration.
Page No.# 3/5
2. The instant writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated
15.03.2021 passed in Misc.(J) Case No.11/2019 whereby the learned District
Judge, Morigaon had rejected the application for condonation of delay in
preferring the Appeal under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorised Occupants), Act 1971 (for short, 'the Act of 1971').
3. At the outset, it is relevant to mention that the instant writ petition is not
maintainable on the ground that in respect of an order passed by Civil Court, no
writ lies. Be that as it may, this Court for the ends of justice, takes up the
instant proceedings in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the
Constitution.
4. From the materials on record, it is seen that the petitioner claims that a
plot of land measuring 3 lechas out of 4 kathas and 16 lechas of land covered
by Dag No.174 of Jagiroad Revenue Town Kissam under Mouza Gova in the
District of Morigaon is a Government land. It is the case of the
petitioner that the father of the petitioner was possessing the said land since
1960 by constructing a temporary house.
5. The further case of the petitioner is that the respondent No.3 had initiated
a proceedings under the Act of 1971 claiming that the land in question belonged
to the Railways and further directed that the petitioner may be evicted as
because of unauthorized and illegal occupation of the Railway land. It is also
seen that the petitioner as plaintiff had instituted a suit before the Court of the
Page No.# 4/5
learned Munsiff No.1, Morigaon challenging the said eviction proceedings which
is registered and numbered as Title Suit No.13/2015. The Court of the learned
Munsiff No.1, Morigaon vide the judgment and order dated 19.08.2017 had
dismissed the suit. It is, however, very pertinent to take note of that while
deciding the issue No.4, the Court of the learned Munsiff No.1 Morigaon had
categorically opined that the land is a Railway land.
6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 19.08.2017, the
petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Court of the learned Civil Judge
Morigaon, which was registered and numbered as Title Appeal No.32/2017. The
said appeal was dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 10.01.2019,
thereby upholding the finding that the land in question was a Railway land.
7. It is further seen that the petitioner thereupon again approached this Court
by filing a Regular Second Appeal which was registered and numbered as RSA
No.56/2019. The said second appeal was dismissed by the order dated
04.05.2019 by this Court opining that there was no substantial question of law
that could be formulated. The record further reveals that the petitioner
thereafter filed an appeal under Section 9 of the Act of 1971 for condonation of
delay along with an application for condonation and delay. The said application
for condonation of delay was dismissed by the impugned order dated
15.03.2021 and it is under such circumstances that the present writ petition was
filled.
8. This Court had duly perused the impugned order and it had been
Page No.# 5/5
categorically mentioned by the learned District Judge, Morigaon that there was
no explanation whatsoever as to what barred the petitioner in preparing the
appeal under the Act of 1971 within 12 days from 04.05.2019. It has also been
mentioned that in the petition for condonation of delay, there is not a single line
dedicated explaining the reasons for delay in filing the appeal under the Act of
1971 after the receipt of the order from this Court in RSA No. 56/2019. This
Court upon perusal of the impugned order is of the opinion that there is nothing
on record to show that the impugned order suffers from any perversity.
9. Under such circumstances, the question of even exercising the powers
under Article 227 of the Constitution does not arise, for which, the instant writ
petition stands dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
