GUWAHATI, India, Nov. 16 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Oct. 16:
1. The petitioner no. 1 which is an Association along with 4 of its members has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging, inter alia, the action of the respondent nos. 4 to 7 taken on 02.02.2021 dispossessing / evicting the members of the petitioner no. 1 from land measuring 2 Bighas 1 katha of Dag No. 586 of K.P. Patta No. 75 and handing over possession of the same to the respondent no. 8. It is the contention of the petitioners that such action is wholly without any jurisdiction and not backed by the mandate of law.
2. As per the facts projected, the petitioner no. 1 is a registered Association and the other 4 petitioners are its members. The area in question is a part of a land measuring 50 Bighas which was requisitioned in the year 1976 under the Assam Land (Requisition & Acquisition Act), 1964 for construction of a Helipad at Beltola, Guwahati. However, due to certain change in the policy decision, the land was de-requisitioned by an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup on 20.12.1999 and accordingly, the land had vested back on the earlier owner. It is the admitted case of the petitioners that they are in possession of the land having residential houses since a long period of time. In the year 2009, an action was initiated under the Assam Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupation) Act, 1971 for eviction of the petitioners and notices were issued on 15.09.2009. The said action was however the subject matter of challenge in a writ petition which was instituted before this Court and registered as WP(C)/4275/2009. This Court, after hearing the parties had passed an order dated 02.09.2014 interfering with the aforesaid action and had set aside the proceeding. The primary consideration of this Court was that the area in question was not within the definition of "Public Premises" under the Act of 1971. An area of land of 35 Bighas out of the aforesaid plot was ultimately purchased by the respondent no. 8 vide a registered Sale Deed on 02.08.2011. It is the contention of the petitioners that such purchase was done by the respondent no. 8 being fully aware of the encumbrances on the land and those were in fact the conditions of the purchase. Nonetheless, symbolic possession was handed over. On 02.02.2021, the petitioners alleged that a large numbers of persons including police personnel led by the respondent nos. 4 to 7 had entered into the land and had handed over 2 Bighas of land to the respondent no. 8 and accordingly, the present petition was filed. This Court vide order dated 05.04.2021 while issuing notice had directed maintenance of status quo.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=QnBUxJ6a3gIx%2B5SFrUiAoHOtfiFqH7zq7Q%2BOkYyvrR1Ohgrhlo5eHIHcla6Jq73e&caseno=WP(C)/2391/2021&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010062582021&state_code=6&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
