JUDGMENT AND ORDER Heard Mr. M.A. Sheikh, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner (plaintiff). The Chairman of the Bilasipara Town Committee (defendant) is represented by the learned Counsel Mr. A.K. Sarma. 2. The Title Suit No.120/2002 was filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for restoration of possession of the shop room at Monohari Line of the Chandina Bazar by alleging forcible dispossession by the Bilasipara Town Committee on 17.2.2002. Mandatory injunction was also prayed for a direction on the defendant to return the building materials for re-construction of the shop room. In their W.S. the defendant Bilasipara Town Committee pleaded that the plaintiff illegally constructed a shop house in the Town Committee’s land without consent or approval. Consequently during the eviction drive against the encroachers carried out under supervision of the Executive Magistrate, all the illegal constructions were demolished to free the Town Committee’s land from encroachers. 3. The learned Civil Judge, Junior Division No.1, Dhubri framed 6 (six) Issues including one on maintainability of the suit and whether the plaintiff was illegally dispossessed by demolishing the shop from the suit land. But after discussing all aspects and on the basis of finding on Issue Nos.1 & 4, the suit was dismissed by refusing relief to the plaintiff. 4. Thereafter the Title Appeal 13/2006 was filed but the appellant (plaintiff) applied for withdrawal of the Appeal. But the learned Civil Judge, Dhubri through his order dated 28.3.2008 dismissed the Title Appeal 13/2006 on contest. Thereafter this Revision petition is filed by the aggrieved plaintiff to challenge the dismissal of his suit as no appeal was maintainable against the Trial Court’s verdict. 5. The removal of encroachment can be made under Section 159 of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Municipal Act”). For this purpose, the Board may issue a notice requiring any person to remove his encroachment and in the event of defiance, the encroachment can be removed with the help of Magistrate. In this case, the learned Trial Court declared that serving of notice is discretionary under Section 159 of the Municipal Act and accordingly the removal of the encroachers was found to be legally permissible. In this case, the learned Trial Court declared that serving of notice is discretionary under Section 159 of the Municipal Act and accordingly the removal of the encroachers was found to be legally permissible. But this Court while interpreting Section 159 of the Municipal Act in Parama Singh vs. Shillong Municipal Board reported in AIR 1964 Assam 80 held that an opportunity to the person affected is mandatory for removing encroachers. Therefore it has to be held that the view taken by the learned Trial Court with regard to application of Section 159 of the Municipal Act was not correct. 6. But the next question is whether any relief can be granted in the suit. The petitioner was dispossessed from the shop room constructed on land of a Government authority and there is a clear finding that the shop room was constructed illegally without approval of the Bilasipara Town Committee and that too on Municipal land. The Bilasipara Town Committee for the purpose of removal of encroachment, is in the same footing as the Government and a suit for recovery of possession is not maintainable against the Government under Sub-Clause (b) of Section 6(2) of the Specific Relief Act. Since this is a legal issue which goes to the root of the suit, the issue is being considered by this Court. 7. When suits are barred against the Government, it has to be held that the petitioner’s suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act against a Government authority was not maintainable. Therefore even if the issue of prior notice under Section 159 of the Municipal Act is answered in favour of the petitioner, his case for recovery of possession against a Government authority stands non-suited under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. It is declared accordingly. 8. In view of above, since petitioner’s suit was not maintainable, the Revision petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost of the proceeding.