Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 398 (GAU)

Kailash Chand Jain v. State of Assam

2004-06-14

AFTAB H.SAIKIA

body2004
JUDGMENT A.H. Saikia, J. 1. Heard Mr. D.P. Chaliha, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by K. Baruah, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and also heard Mr. R.K. Bora, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the official Respondents. 2. The only grievance of the writ Petitioners in this writ petition is that the house and building (hereinafter referred to as 'the premises' of the Petitioners situated at Khanapara covered by Dag No. 17 (old), 341 (new) under K.P. Patta No. 47 with an area of 1 Bigha 3 Kathas 10 Ls was requisitioned in the month of May, 1973. Initially the premises were requisitioned for the purpose of police outpost. Then it was occupied by the Commandant 60 Bn. C.R.P.F. Later on the same was taken over by the police from Commandant 60 Bn. C.R.R.F. in the year 1979 for accommodation of the D.I.G. Border, Assam, Guwahati and since then the premises have been in continuous possession of the D.I.G. Border on rental basis, but in view of such continuous requisition of the premises, the Petitioners have suffered irreparable loss and injury. That apart, the rent so fixed for such purposes, has also not been paid regularly. The Petitioners have further contended that despite their protracted requests for release of the premises from requisition, the competent authority has not taken any steps for releasing the same as well as the outstanding rents. Even the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup has also made several communications to the Police Authority for de-requisition of the premises and payment of arrear rent till date to the Petitioners. To support his such contentions, the Petitioners have annexed the communications dated 18.5.94, 4.8.94 and 6.2.95 as Annexures A, B and C respectively. 3. Contesting the statements made in the writ petition, the Official Respondents have filed their affidavit-in-opposition wherein it had been stated that due to the non availability of the accommodation, the requisitioned premises cannot be handed over to the Petitioners and efforts are being made to get alternative accommodation for shifting of the houses from the present accommodation of the Petitioners. 4. In Grahak Sanstha Manch and Ors. v. State of Maharastra reported in AIR 1994 SC 2319 the Apex Court categorically held in paragraph 16 therein that continuous requisition for more than 30 years would be unreasonable. In the instant case, the Petitioners premises were requisitioned for more than 30 years. 4. In Grahak Sanstha Manch and Ors. v. State of Maharastra reported in AIR 1994 SC 2319 the Apex Court categorically held in paragraph 16 therein that continuous requisition for more than 30 years would be unreasonable. In the instant case, the Petitioners premises were requisitioned for more than 30 years. On the other hand the official Respondents have failed to give cogent and good grounds for keeping the premises under their continuous requisition for more than 30 years. The stand taken by the authority in the affidavit-in-opposition is that a plot of land was allotted by the Revenue Department vide letter No. RSS/256/94/14 dated 20.6.97 and handed over to the Respondents but later on it was found that the said land was encroached for which reason, the said allotment order had to be cancelled. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court and also upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the premises the Petitioners were kept under requisition for more than 30 years which is manifestly unreasonable and unfair causing much inconvenience and hardship to the Petitioners. 6. Consequently, it is provided that the premises of the Petitioners so requisitioned by the Respondent authority be released to the Petitioners expeditiously preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of this order. It is made clear that the concerned authority shall take necessary steps to release the arrear rents and also rents to which the Petitioners are entitled to till the release of the premises from requisition with time frame as indicated herein. 7. In the result, this writ petition stands allowed. No Costs. Petition allowed