Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 227 (GAU)

Momin Ali 36 Ors. v. State of Assam & 6 Ors.

2016-03-28

AJIT SINGH, MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2016
Ajit Singh; CJ.:-- 1. None appeared for the appellants despite the case having been called up twice. Heard Mrs. B Goyal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents on admission of this writ appeal. 2. This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 24.7.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby he has dismissed the appellants’ WP(C) No. 3154/2009. 3. The appellants were occupying Government land in the Panbari Forest Revenue Village bearing Govt. Patta No. 60(new)/63(old) of Dag No. 75(new) /189 (old) and considering the occupation to be illegal, eviction proceedings were initiated against them in an Encroachment Case No. 24/84-85. 4. The appellants had also applied for settlement of that government land in their favour, but the prayer was rejected and instead the land has been settled in favour of other needy and deserving persons. The appellants have taken recourse to numerous legal proceedings before the Civil Court, Revenue Court and the High Court and in none of the proceedings, they have held to be lawful occupiers. On the contrary, they have been held as encroachers. Also in the final Case No. 107 RA(D)/2009, the Assam Board of Revenue vide order dated 27.7.2009 affirmed the finding of Deputy Commissioner that appellants were encroachers and hence they were not entitled for relief against the Eviction Proceeding. 5. Aggrieved, the appellants filed WP(C) No. 3154/2009 which the learned Single Judge has dismissed. While dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has dealt in detail with the chequered history of litigations in the matter. The operative paragraphs 8 and 9 of the order read as under: “8. In the above backdrop, when the petitioners plea for land allotment was rejected as far back as on 26.8.1988 and the concerned land was settled with the respondent No. 7 and other deserving landless families on 31.5.1989, the petitioners were rightly held to be encroachers by the Revenue Board which refused to entertain the writ petitioners’ challenge to the Encroachment Case No. 1/08-09 through the impugned order dated 27.7.2009 (Annexure-16). 9. I have considered the matter from all perspective and find that the petitioners’ status is no better than opportunistic encroachers. Through multiple litigation they have perpetuated the illegality and have also offered stiff resistance to occupation to the lawful settlers. 9. I have considered the matter from all perspective and find that the petitioners’ status is no better than opportunistic encroachers. Through multiple litigation they have perpetuated the illegality and have also offered stiff resistance to occupation to the lawful settlers. When the petitioners are encroachers of Government land where they have no title and when the land is already allotted to 3rd parties, I am of the view that the equity doesn’t lie with the encroachers but with the deserving allottees. Consequently, I declare that the impugned order dated 27.7.2009 in the Case No. 107 RA(D)/2009 was rightly passed by the learned Revenue Board and therefore the case is dismissed without any order on cost.” 6. After perusing the record, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The appellants must now gracefully accept the order of eviction passed against them by the competent authorities and vacate the land if they have not already done so. 7. This appeal stands dismissed.