Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1049 (GAU)

Kashi Nath Boro v. State of Assam

2017-08-03

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. None appears for the petitioner, when the matter is called upon. Heard Mr. G. Pegu, learned State counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 2. The petitioner purchased a plot of myadi patta land measuring 2 kathas 15 lechas of Dag No. 200, Patta No. 33 at Village Baruabari under Panbari Mouza in Sonapur Revenue Circle, District: Kamrup (M). The said purchase was made in the year 2001 by a registered sale deed dated 23.4.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner got his name mutated in the Chitha and the Jamabandi against the Dag No. 200, Patta No. 33 by the order dated 4.6.2001 of the Circle Officer, Sonapur Revenue Circle. 3. Accordingly, it is stated that the petitioner has been possessing the land from the year 2001 by constructing the house thereon. It is also stated that in the year 2005 an area measuring 10 lechas out of an area of land measuring 2 kathas, 15 lechas under Dag No. 200, Patta No. 33 at village Baruabari under Panbari Mouza in Sonapur Revenue Circle, District: Kamrup (M) was acquired by the Collector, Kamrup (M) under section 3E of the National Highway Act, 1956 for expansion of the National Highway work. Accordingly, the petitioner had also been paid the required compensation for such acquisition of land. 4. The petitioner also states that they have been regularly paying the land revenue in respect of the aforesaid plot of land and, accordingly, he has annexed the photocopies of the land revenue receipt dated 9.4.2012 to substantiate his claim. 5. In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the eviction notice under sections 18(2), 165(1), 165(2) and 165(3) of the Assam Land Revenue Regulation Act, 1886. It is stated in the said eviction notice that the notice pertains to Eviction Case No. 80/2012 and the schedule of the land is shown as Dag No. 325 and the area of the land under illegal occupation is shown as 1 katha. 6. The petitioner in this writ petition assails the said eviction notice on the ground that although the petitioner had been in occupation of his own myadi patta land, which has been duly mutated in the revenue records, the respondent-authorities by issuing the eviction notice dated 7.9.2012 seeks to evict the petitioner from his myadi patta land. 7. No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondent-authorities. 8. 7. No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondent-authorities. 8. From the materials annexed to this writ petition, this court is, prima facie, satisfied that the petitioner is in occupation of his own myadi patta land, which he had duly purchased by a registered sale deed and his name is also duly mutated in the Chitha and the Jamabandi. 9. In such view of the matter, no reason can be found as to how the respondent-authorities can evict the petitioner from the aforesaid land by taking advantage of some eviction notice dated 9.7.2012, which again is for 1 katha of land under Dag No. 325. As already noted that the petitioner is the owner of the concerned land which is covered by Dag No. 200, Patta No. 33 at village Baruabari under Panbari Mouza in Sonapur Revenue Circle, District: Kamrup (M) and he is not occupying any land under Dag No. 325. 10. In such view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by providing that the respondent-authorities by acting under the said eviction notice dated 9.7.2012 shall not evict or disturb the possession of the petitioner in any manner from his occupation of his plot of land under Dag No. 200, Patta No. 33 at village Baruabari under Panbari Mouza in Sonapur Revenue Circle, District: Kamrup (M). 11. In terms of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of.