In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner challenged notices requiring him to vacate land he alleged he had purchased possessory rights over. The High Court found no reason to interfere and dismissed the petition, upholding the encroachment notices.
The writ petition seeking quashing of the notices was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010000592019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 126/2019
1:ANWAR ALI S/O LATE MURTAZA ANSARI R/O MASJID PATTY, MARGHERITA TOWN, P.O. MARGHERITA, P.S. MARGHERITA DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM. PIN - 786181.
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI - 781006.
2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TINSUKIA DISTRICT AT TINSUKIA PIN - 786125.
3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER MARGHERITA REVENUE CIRCLE MARGHERITA PIN - 786181
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S CHAUHAN
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
ORDER
Date : 09-01-2019
Heard Mr. S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department, Govt. of Assam. Also heard Mr. S.R. Baruah, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam.
Page No.# 2/2
By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of Annexures 3 and 4 notices dated 12.11.2018 and 20.12.2018.
As per the first notice dated 12.11.2018, petitioner was informed by the Circle Officer, Margherita Revenue Circle that he had encroached 3 lessas of land out of which 1 katha 7 lessas of Dag No.2495 of Makum Mouza, Margherita town which is preserved for river side. Petitioner was therefore asked to vacate the same within 7 days failing which it was stated that appropriate steps will be taken.
By subsequent notice dated 20.12.2018, Circle Officer reminded the petitioner of the previous notice dated 12.11.2018 and again asked him to vacate the encroached land within three days.
In the writ petition, petitioner has not denied encroachment over the said plot of land rather he has stated that he had purchased possessory right over on 18.02.2010 over the said plot of land from one Smt. Dhaneswari Malla.
The land encroached by the petitioner is on the bank of Dihing river which as per the impugned notices have been earmarked/preserved for river side.
On due consideration, Court finds no good reason to interfere with the aforesaid two notices.
Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the notices dated 12.11.2018 and 20.12.2018 directing the petitioner to vacate encroached land preserved for river side should be quashed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Anwar Ali
The State of Assam
Deputy Commissioner Tinsukia
Circle Officer Margherita
Ujjal Bhuyan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
