Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 122 (MEG)

Ashok Kumar Ghosh v. State of Meghalaya

2014-05-27

S.R.SEN

body2014
Judgment Sudip Ranjan Sen, J. 1. This instant writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 4.10.12. 2. The petitioner's case in nut shell is that, "the petitioners have been in occupation of the premises being Red Hill Complex at Laitumkhrah, Shillong-793003 for the past 35 years or more which they had rented from (L) N.C. Das Choudhury upon bonafide good faith as to the title of (L) N.C. Das Choudhury (and subsequently to his son Shri. Narayan Das Choudhury, after his demise) over the aforesaid complex. The petitioners had been running their petty business in the said premises such as Pan Shop cum PCO cum Grocery cum Tea Stall and Pan Shop respectively without any hindrance and upon which they are solely dependent for their livelihood, survival and maintenance of their families. However, on 23.05.2007 the petitioners were served with a (Notice Annexure-6 of Writ Petition) vide Case/File No. L. 14/6(3)2006/25 from the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills, Shillong under Section- 3 of the Meghalaya Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1980. To show-cause as to why the petitioners should not be evicted from unauthorized occupation which came as a shock to the petitioners as they were unaware of the fact that the said complex belongs to Respondent No. 3 or Health Department, Government of Meghalaya. The petitioners replied to the show-cause and the proceedings were initiated against the petitioners in which they participated diligently as per the notice but the petitioners stopped did not received any Notice since the month of July, 2012 and upon enquiry, they were informed that the said Case/File has been misplaced. But suddenly on 4.10.12, the petitioners received an Order dated 4.10.12 from the Learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Revenue (Respondent No. 5) in Case/File No. L.14/6(13)2006 thereby dismissing and disposing of the aforesaid case without any opportunity of being heard and notice to the petitioners and instead directing the respondent authorities to take immediate steps for eviction. But suddenly on 4.10.12, the petitioners received an Order dated 4.10.12 from the Learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Revenue (Respondent No. 5) in Case/File No. L.14/6(13)2006 thereby dismissing and disposing of the aforesaid case without any opportunity of being heard and notice to the petitioners and instead directing the respondent authorities to take immediate steps for eviction. Subsequently on 6.10.12, the respondent authorities without following the due procedure of law under Section- 4 Sub-Section (1) and Section- 8 Sub-Section (1) and (2) of the Meghalaya Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1980 or any notice of eviction and in sheer violation of the principles of natural of justice, equity and fair play or giving any other avenues or opportunity to the petitioners to opt for any legal recourse, came and demolished/dismantled the said premises on 6.10.12 upon which the petitioners livelihood and survival is dependent upon, more so, for a long period of 35 years or more. The petitioners being highly aggrieved by the illegal, arbitrary and malafide order of Respondent No. 5 dated 4.10.12 passed against the petitioners in Case/File No. L. 14/6(13)2006 and non-observance for the due procedures of law as provided under Section 4 Sub-Section(1) and Section- 8 Sub-Section (1) and (2) of the Meghalaya Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1980 and forced and wrongful eviction of the petitioners and dismantling of the said Red Hill Complex premises on 6.10.12 by respondent authorities which caused grave injustice to the petitioners by illegal evicting the petitioners from the said premises without affording any opportunity as per law and thus wrongful depriving the petitioners from their only source of livelihood and sustenance have approached this Hon'ble Court for relief by way of this instant Writ Petition." 3. Mr. P Nongbri, the learned counsel for the petitioner appeared for on behalf of the petitioners argued that the petitioners are never be the unauthorised occupant of the premises in question but they have been forcibly removed from the said premises without following the rules and laws enunciated under Meghalaya Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1980. The learned counsel further contended that, the petitioners were not given an opportunity to prefer an appeal as required under Section- 8 of the said Act referred to above. Being aggrieved by the act of the respondent, the petitioners were compelled to approach this Court by way of this writ petition. 4. The learned counsel further contended that, the petitioners were not given an opportunity to prefer an appeal as required under Section- 8 of the said Act referred to above. Being aggrieved by the act of the respondent, the petitioners were compelled to approach this Court by way of this writ petition. 4. On the other hand, Mr. S. Sen Gupta, the learned GA submits that, there is nothing wrong with the impugned order dated 4.10.12 as ample opportunities were given to the petitioners to appear and take part in the proceeding but the petitioners failed to avail the said opportunities, as a result, the matter proceeded exparte and subsequently an order was passed on 4.10.12. Basis on the said order, the respondent demolished the unauthorised structures on 6.10.12. 5. Section- 8 of the Meghalaya Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1980 which is reproduced herein below: (1) An appeal shall lie from every order of the Deputy Commissioner in respect of any public premises under Section- 4 or Section- 6 to the Board of Revenue (2) An appeal under sub-section(1) shall be preferred within fifteen days from the date on which the order is communicated to the appellant : Provided that the Board of Revenue may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of fifteen days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause form filing the appeal in time. (3) Where an appeal is preferred from an order of the Deputy Commissioner, the Board of Revenue may stay the enforcement of that order for such period and on such conditions as it deems fit. (4) Every appeal under this section shall be disposed of by the Board of Revenue as expeditiously as possible. (5) The costs of any appeal under this Section shall be in the discretion of the Board of Revenue. 6. On bare perusal of the Section- 8 referred above, it is understood that, an appeal is mandatory and it is the statutory right of the party against whom eviction order was passed. It is also clear that an appeal is to be preferred within 15(fifteen) days from the date of the order. 7. From the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is an admitted fact that eviction order was passed exparte on 4.10.12 and demolition was on 6.11.12. It is also clear that an appeal is to be preferred within 15(fifteen) days from the date of the order. 7. From the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is an admitted fact that eviction order was passed exparte on 4.10.12 and demolition was on 6.11.12. Therefore, I am of the considered view that, the respondent has barred/stop the petitioner to prefer an appeal which in my view is illegal and the respondent has taken away the statutory right of the petitioners. Further, from the submissions of both the learned counsel, it is also an admitted fact that eviction process has already been completed. In such a circumstances, I am not in a position to decide who was actually in possession. Besides that, this Court also cannot decide the title of the parties. But at the same time this Court cannot remain a mute spectator in the manner in which eviction drive was conducted and statutory right of appeal being taken away. Hence, the petitioners are given a liberty to file an appeal before the Board of Revenue within a period of 15(fifteen) days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Further, the Board of Revenue is also directed to consider the appeal of the petitioners in accordance with law. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that during the eviction, huge damages has been caused to the petitioners. In such a circumstances, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the Civil Court to assess the losses. The losses found if any, that to be compensated by the respondent as decided by the Civil Court. 9. It is further directed that, until the matter is decided by the Board of Revenue, no further activities should take place in the disputed premises. 10. Mr. S. Sen Gupta, the learned GA has taken with him the File of the Office of the Deputy Commissioner and he is directed to return back the same to the Deputy Commissioner's Office. 11. Registry is also directed to furnish a copy of this order to both the learned counsel for the parties. 12. With these observations & directions, this instant writ petition is allowed to that extent and the matter stands disposed of.