Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 630 (GAU)

Kamal Ch. Barman v. State of Assam

2017-05-23

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2017
JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.P. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner along with 30 families are residing at Jayanagar near the Rajbhawan since late sixties by constructing residential houses. It is stated that the petitioners are paying the municipality taxes and also separate holding numbers were issued in their favour. The petitioner and others are using a 12 ft. wide road near the Rajbhawan for the ingress and egress for the last 4 decades. 3. It is stated that in the year 2007, they had submitted certain applications for development of alternative road which was initially processed by the authorities, but later on, not continued further. 4. On 07.04.2010, a group of personnel from the CRPF posted at Rajbhawan is interfering with the ingress and egress of the petitioners by not allowing them and the other residents to use the aforesaid road and have also threatened to erect an wall to close the road permanently. In the aforesaid circumstance, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of this writ petition. 5. By an interim order dated 09.04.2010, this Court had provided that till the returnable date, considering the averments made in the writ petition, the respondent authorities were directed to allow the petitioners to use the road in question and were restrained from putting any obstruction. 6. It is stated by Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioners that since the interim order, the petitioners have been using the aforesaid road for the purpose of their ingress and egress, without any obstruction from any authority. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup(M), wherein, it is stated that in the land covered by Dag No.460/461/456/459 of village Sahar Kharghuli, Mouza Ulubari is a Government land and the 22 numbers of families have encroached the said Government land by constructing dwelling houses. It is also stated that the road mentioned in the writ petition is a Government land of Dag No. 457 and passes through Rajbhawan area and connects the M.G. Road. 7. It is also stated that during the year 2006 an alternative road by the side of the river Brahmputra was traced out for safety and security of Rajbhawan and for ingress and egress of the residents of Jayanagar. 7. It is also stated that during the year 2006 an alternative road by the side of the river Brahmputra was traced out for safety and security of Rajbhawan and for ingress and egress of the residents of Jayanagar. But it appears that nothing has been stated in the affidavit as to what is the outcome of the said process. In the affidavit, it is stated that during spot verification, it is found that a very narrow pavement exists over the concerned Dags from Jayanagr to MG Road. 8. In view of such stand taken in the affidavit-in-opposition of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M), wherein it is stated that the petitioners are encroachers of a Government land, no specific stand has been taken, as to why the ingress and egress of the petitioners from the respective residential houses to the connecting MG road should be obstructed. 9. In such view of the matter, as agreed by the parties, this Court deems it appropriate that the writ petition be closed by providing that as the petitioners be allowed to continue to use the concerned road for the ingress and egress as the respondent authorities have not done anything further to prevent their ingress and egress. But however, if the respondent authorities are of the view that the use of the said road by the petitioners for their ingress and egress is causing some security concern in the Rajbhawan area, appropriate measures may be taken by the respondent authorities against the petitioners by following due procedure of law. Liberty is also given to the petitioners to approach the respondent authorities to pursue the proposed alternative road that the respondent authorities have mentioned in their affidavit-in-opposition. Writ petition stands closed. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.