Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1376 (GAU)

Hapsa Zongsam v. State of Assam

2017-10-26

HRISHIKESH ROY

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Ms. T. Som, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The State authorities are represented by Mr. D. Nath, the learned Addl. Sr. GA. The Assam Industrial Infrastructural Development Corporation (AIIDC) (respondent No. 4), is represented by Mr. M. Mahanta, the learned counsel. 2. The petitioner claims to be in occupation of Government land measuring 32 Bighas in village-Parbatipur N.C. in Tirap Mouza of Tinsukia district. The concerned land is comprised within the Tribal Belt and the petitioner seeks protection of her occupation since, on 12.11.2009, the Revenue staff gave verbal threat for eviction, to the petitioner. She also seeks direction for settlement of the Government land as a long standing occupier. 3. Some years earlier when the Circle Officer, Margherita along with the police attempted to evict the petitioner on 28.9.2001, she filed the WP(C) No. 7257/2001 to secure protection from eviction. This case was disposed of on 12.10.2001 (Annexure C) whereby the court directed that eviction should only be carried out in accordance with law and if the petitioner prays for settlement, the same be considered by the D.C., Tinsukia. 4. The learned counsel Ms. T. Som for the petitioner submits that the settlement of the occupied land has not been considered and instead attempt was made for eviction of the petitioner. The counsel further submits that this court passed an interim order on 4.12.2009 and, therefore, she contends that the petitioner's occupation of the Government land, stands protected under the court's order. 5.1 On the other hand, Mr. D. Nath, the learned Addl. Sr. GA refers to the counter affidavit filed by the SDO(C), Margherita to submit that the petitioner was an encroacher of Government land but she was evicted on 20.10.2000 on the strength of the order passed in the Encroachment Case No. 25/2000. When the Government land was re-occupied, the Encroachment Case No. 12/2008-2009 was started and this time, the land was made completely free from encroachment. 5.2 The Government advocate further submits that the Sub-Divisional Land Advisory Committee, Margherita in the meeting held on 16.2.2009 passed a resolution for allotment of the land to the AIIDC, for implementation of Government projects and thereafter, formal allotment order was passed in favour of the Government Corporation on 16.12.2009, by the Add. D.C(R), Tinsukia. Thereafter the possession of the allotted land measuring 130 Bighas was handed over on 17.12.2009 to the AIIDC. 6. D.C(R), Tinsukia. Thereafter the possession of the allotted land measuring 130 Bighas was handed over on 17.12.2009 to the AIIDC. 6. As the petitioner obtained an interim order from this court on 4.12.2009, she filed the COP(C) No. 59/2010 with the allegation of willful defiance of the court's interim order. However, when the Contempt Case was taken up, this court noted that the petitioner was already evicted by the time the stay order was passed in her favour on 4.12.2009. On that basis, willful disobedience of the court's protective order was ruled out and accordingly the Contempt Case was closed on 28.10.2014. 7. The petitioner may have been in occupation of the Government land at some stage but her encroachment was removed through due process and the occupied land was made free through eviction. Subsequently, the land was allotted to the AIIDC and it is submitted by the learned counsel Mr. M. Mahanta that the allotted land is being utilized for construction of the Integrated Infrastructural Development Centre, Parbatipur project and the Trade Facilitation Centre, Jagun project and both projects have been constructed with major funding by the Central Government. 8. The counter-affidavit filed by the SDO(C) reflects that after the petitioner was evicted by the authorities, she tried to induct one Biren Deka into the Tribal belt land but the said Biren Deka was also evicted on the basis of the encroachment proposal forwarded, by the Circle Officer, Margherita. This itself reveals that the petitioner was not in physical occupation of the Government land and, therefore, a settlement claim at her instance, cannot naturally be entertained. 9. When the petitioner was nothing more than an encroacher of Government land and the encroachment was cleared through due process, no legal right can be claimed by the illegal encroacher. As the concerned land is already allotted to the AIIDC (respondent No. 4) and they have utilized the land for setting up the Integrated Infrastructural Development Centre and the Trade Facilitation Centre, it is not possible to entertain any claim for settlement, of the already allotted land. The Court must also factor in the public interest in utilization of the land by the respondent-corporation. 10. It is recorded in the COP(C) No. 59/2010 that the petitioner stood evicted prior to the stay order secured by her on 4.12.2009. The Court must also factor in the public interest in utilization of the land by the respondent-corporation. 10. It is recorded in the COP(C) No. 59/2010 that the petitioner stood evicted prior to the stay order secured by her on 4.12.2009. Hence, the petitioner is disentitled to claim any right of occupation or settlement of the Government land. Moreover, the concerned land is already utilized for two public projects by the AIIDC, so, therefore, the plea for allotment of the same very land, cannot also be entertained, from any quarter. It is declared accordingly. 11. For the foregoing discussion and conclusion, this petition is found devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No cost.