Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 927 (GAU)

Sashi Talukdar (Devi) v. State of Assam

2017-07-17

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Heard Ms. K. Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. P. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Roy, learned State counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is in occupation of the land measuring 3 kathas 14 lechas under dag No.114 of Patta No.F.S. Grant-1 of village Baruabari, Mouza Panbari in the district of Kamrup (M). 3. It is stated that the petitioner had constructed her dwelling house over the said plot of land and for the last 37 years, there is no dispute with any person or any authority as regards the aforesaid occupation. 4. Annexure-1, is the copy of the Chitha, which indicates that the petitioner is in occupation of 3 kathas 15 lechas under dag No.114 of Patta No.F.S. Grant No.1 of village Baruabari, Mouza Panbari under the Sonapur Revenue Circle, out of the total land measuring 17 bighas 4 kathas 10 lechas under the said dag. Annexures 2 to 6 indicates that the petitioner has been paying the required land revenue in respect of her aforesaid land. 5. In the circumstances, the petitioner is aggrieved by the notice undated under the signature of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) under Section 18(2), 165(i), 165(ii), 165(iii) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 issued against her name. The Eviction Case No.74/2012 has been registered and the name of the purported illegal occupant is shown to be the present petitioner Smti Sashi Talukdar (Devi) being the wife of Sri Baneswar Talukdar. The notice states that the petitioner is illegally occupying the land and, therefore, it is ordered that the petitioner either vacate the land or else she would be evicted. 6. But what is noticeable is that the schedule of the land included in the said notice is stated to be Dag no.308 of village Baruabari under Mouza Panbari, in the district of Kamrup (Metro) and the area of land is stated to be 1 katha 10 lechas of land. 7. As noticed earlier that the petitioner is in occupation of 3 kathas 14 lechas under dag No.114 of Patta No.F.S. Grant-1 of village Baruabari, Mouza Panbari in the district of Kamrup(M), whereas the notice of eviction served upon her is in respect of Dag no.308 of village Baruabari under Mouza Panbari, in the district of Kamrup(Metro). 8. 7. As noticed earlier that the petitioner is in occupation of 3 kathas 14 lechas under dag No.114 of Patta No.F.S. Grant-1 of village Baruabari, Mouza Panbari in the district of Kamrup(M), whereas the notice of eviction served upon her is in respect of Dag no.308 of village Baruabari under Mouza Panbari, in the district of Kamrup(Metro). 8. In such view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with the observation that the petitioner shall not be evicted from the occupation of her land of 3 kathas 14 lechas under dag No.114 of Patta No.F.S. Grant-1 of village Baruabari, Mouza Panbari in the district of Kamrup(M), pursuant to the said notice, which is annexed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. 9. In the event, the respondent authorities feel that the petitioner is liable to be evicted, such process should be initiated only upon serving appropriate notice in respect of Dag No.114 and not in respect of some other Dag Number. 10. In terms of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of.