Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 70 (GAU)

S. Arunkumar Singh v. State of Manipur and Ors.

2005-01-31

T.NANDA KUMAR SINGH

body2005
1. Heard Mr. O. Chittaranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned Addl. G.A. for the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the pattadar of the homestead land under patta No. 44/351(new) covered by C.S. Dag No. 238, 239 measuring an area of .079 hectare situated at Heinoukhongnembi village. The petitioner has been in possession of the said homestead land as owner by constructing pucca and semi pucca structures thereat for the last many years. True copy of the patta is at (Annexure-A/1 to the writ petition). In the 1st week of January, 2005, Revenue Staff as well as other official of the Govt. of Manipur came to the said patta land of the petitioner and put red marks on the structures of the petitioner stating that some portion of the patta land will be required for expansion of the ODR/MDR, and those portion could be dismantled. Some Police personnel with the assistance of heavy machineries had also removed some structures standing on the side of National Highway No. 150 Tiddim Road. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner has been informed by the Revenue Staff as well as Police personnel that he would be evicted from his patta land for expansion of the ODR/MDR from Kongba to Ningthemcha Karong.. 3. This court is flooded with the writ petitions which are similar with the present writ petition. In a welfare State like ours the executive authorities of the State Government have to act within the four corners of law. When the legislature confers powers in the State Government to be exercised in certain circumstances or eventualities, it would be right to presume that the legislature intends that the said power be exercised in the manner envisaged by the statute. If the statute confers drastic power, such power must be exercised in a proper and fair manner. Learned counsel for the petitioner clearly submits that the State Government having the officers fully conversant with the procedure for evicting pattadar from the patta land should follow the rule of law and procedure required for evicting the land owner from the patta land while taking up any step for eviction. It is good if the State Government took up step for evicting pattadar from the patta land for public purposes. It is good if the State Government took up step for evicting pattadar from the patta land for public purposes. But the State Government is cautioned that they should follow the procedure prescribed/due process of law while evicting the owners/pattadars from the patta land for public purposes. 4. In such situation, I direct the State respondents not to evict the petitioner from his patta land without following due process of law. It is made clear that the respondents should demarcate the area which are required to be evicted by giving notice to the petitioner by the Revenue officials, and eviction process shall be taken up according to due process of law. 5. With the above observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of.