Dismissed

Smti. Maina Das v. the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Gauhati HC4 May 2019RSA/56/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This second appeal was filed against the dismissal of a civil suit concerning possessory rights over railway land. The High Court held that no substantial question of law remained and dismissed the appeal, while noting the availability of an alternative remedy.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal is dismissed with the direction to file for the prescribed appellate remedy subject to condonation of delay.

Smti. Maina Das Vs the Union of India and 6… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010035842019

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : RSA 56/2019

¶5

1:SMTI. MAINA DAS D/O- LATE GANGA RAM DAS R/O- VILL.- GHUNUCHA, JAGIROAD, P.O. AND P.S.- JAGIROAD, DIST.MORIGAON, ASSAM

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1:THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS.

¶8

REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, NORTH EASTERN FRONTIER RAILWAY, MALIGAON, GUWAHATI-11, ASSAM

¶9

2:THE ESTATE OFFICER NORTH EASTERN FRONTIER RAILWAY LUMDING DIST.- NAGAON ASSAM

¶10

3:SSE (WORKS) JAGIROAD NORTH EASTERN FRONTIER RAILWAY P.O. - JAGIROAD DIST.- MORIGAON ASSAM

¶11

4:ADEN JAGIROAD NORTH EASTERN FRONTIER RAILWAY P.O.- JAGIROAD DIST.- MORIGAON ASSAM

¶12

5:THE STATE OF ASSAM

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI ASSAM

¶15

6:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MORIGAON P.O. MORIGAON DIST.- MORIGAON ASSAM

¶16

7:THE CIRCLE OFFICER MAYONG REVENUE CIRCLE P.O.- JAGI BHAKATGAON DIST.- MORIGAON ASSA

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G N SAHEWALLA

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, RAILWAY

¶19

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA

¶20

ORDER

¶21

04.05.2019

¶22

Heard Ms. B. Sarma, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Brijesh Sarma, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 and Mr. C. K. S. Baruah, the learned Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7.

¶23

The present appellant filed a suit with a prayer for protection of her possessory right over a plot of land measuring 3 Lechas on the basis of a possessory certificate issued by the Circle Officer, Mayong Revenue Circle. The cause of action for the suit arose when the respondent railways issued notices initially under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (the Act) and having defaulted in responding to the said notice, railway authority issued notice under Section 5 of the said Act passing an order of eviction from the said 3 Lechas of land. The defendant/respondent railway filed its written

¶24

Page No.# 3/4

¶25

statement thereby denying the claim of the plaintiff/appellant that the land is a Government land rather it is the claim of the railways that the said land falls within the land under its jurisdiction. Taking further plea that requisite notices were issued to the plaintiff/appellant as such, the suit is liable to be dismissed in addition to denial of the pleadings in the plaint. The State Government also filed its written statement thereby supporting the claim of the railways and disputing the possession of the plaintiff/appellant and defending it to be a ploy for encroachment of Government land. It further supported that the plot of land under the occupation of the plaintiff/appellant belongs within the boundary of certified railway land jointly signed by the railway authority and State authority. The State also sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶26

The trial court dismissed the suit and the first appellate court disbelieved the issuance of the possessory certificate Ext-1 purported to be issued by the Circle Officer (Revenue) of Mayong Revenue Circle. The first appellate court held that the certificate given by the Circle Officer must be based on Revenue records. The plaintiff/appellant made no attempt to bring on record, the application bearing No.123/03 dated 03.03.2003 on the basis of which the Ext-1 was issued. Examining the Vandyke map Ext-5 and the copy of the Chitha Ext-6 produced by the Official witnesses, the first appellate court came to the finding that the said exhibits does not help the plaintiff/appellant. The first appellate court took note of the Exts-A, B and C produced by the defendant/respondent railways which are the show cause notice under Section 4 of the Act and the eviction order under Section 5 of the Act and the court below came to the conclusion that the plaintiff/appellant is an unauthorised occupants inasmuch as after holding the land to be of the railways, the court below held that necessary license for such occupation of the railway land ought to have been produced by the plaintiff/appellant. Accordingly, the first appellate court held that there was no fault on the part of the railways in terming the plaintiff/appellant as the unauthorised occupants of the railway property. Further the first appellate court took note of the provision under Section 15(a) of the Act whereby interference by the Civil Court is totally ousted in matters covered by the said Act.

¶27

In my considered opinion, no substantial question of law is left with to be formulated in order to admit this second appeal. Accordingly, this second appeal stands

¶28

Page No.# 4/4

¶29

dismissed. However, as Section 5 notice after causing an enquiry had already been issued by the respondents railways, there is no bar in agitating the dispute before the appellate forum as prescribed under the Act subject to condonation of delay by the court concerned.

¶30

Accordingly, this second appeal is disposed of.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Smti. Maina Das v. the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smti. Maina Das v. the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md. Safiqul Islam Vs on the Death of Late Lakheswar Deka

Sri Bed Prakash Agarwalla and 4 Ors. Vs Sri Puranmal Agarwalla and 9 Ors.

Nazitora Bori Vs Sambhu Prasad Thakur and 5 Ors.

Hillal Uddin Barrbhuiya Vs Musstt. Latiful Bibi and 10 Ors.

M/S Gagan Deal Trade Private Limited Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

On the Death of Bibekananda Roy His Legal Heirs and Anr. Vs Smti. Probhabati Roy and 3 Ors.