Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 108 (GAU)

Haren Saikia v. State of Assam

2017-01-24

AJIT SINGH, SUMAN SHYAM

body2017
JUDGMENT : Ajit Singh, J. This appeal is directed against an interlocutory order dated 15.10.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court, whereby he has declined to grant interim relief in favour of the appellant in pending WP(C) No. 5227/2014. 2. According to the appellant, he is occupying government land measuring 15 Bighas 4 Kathas 1 Lecha situated at Village Chandrapur Bagicha, District Kamrup (M), which is within a tribal belt area, on which, he is operating brick industry. He claims to have applied for grant of patta of that land, but since he has been served with an eviction notice dated 13.6.2014 from it by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) treating him as an encroacher, he rushed to file WP(C) No. 5227/2014 for a direction restraining his eviction. He also prayed for interim protection from being evicted. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M), in reply, submitted that no land has been allotted to the appellant and he had been occupying the above-mentioned land illegally by making encroachment. The Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) also made a statement that in an anti-encroachment drive, as many as 35 brick kilns, including that of appellant, have already been removed from the Government land. 4. The learned Single Judge, vide order dated 15.10.2014, while issuing notice to the respondents in the writ petition, declined to grant interim protection from eviction of the appellant. It appears that the learned Single Judge declined to grant interim protection because the appellant had already been evicted from the land, in question, as per the statement of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M). Aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 5. The learned counsel, appearing for the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M), has reiterated that appellant has already been evicted from the land, in question but the appellant has denied this position and states that he is still in possession of the same. 6. Whatever it may be, the impugned order was passed on 15.10.2014, and now, more than two years have passed. The writ petition of the appellant is also pending. We, therefore, instead of delving on the issue whether the appellant is actually in possession of the land, deem it proper to request the learned Single Judge to decide the writ petition itself on merits on an early date. 7. The writ petition of the appellant is also pending. We, therefore, instead of delving on the issue whether the appellant is actually in possession of the land, deem it proper to request the learned Single Judge to decide the writ petition itself on merits on an early date. 7. The Registry shall list the writ petition before the learned Single Judge within two weeks from today. 8. With the above observations, the writ appeal is finally disposed of.