Disposed

Mani Ram Kalita v. the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC1 Mar 2023WP(C)/402/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition regarding land demarcation and railway construction was disposed of at motion stage. Court held the matter lies within the Assam Right to Service Act, 2012, and directed authorities to act within four months.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to take recourse under Assam Right to Public Service Act, 2012; authorities directed to address the issue within four months.

Mani Ram Kalita Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010016042023

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/402/2023

¶5

MANI RAM KALITA S/O- LATE TARUN KALITA, R/O- SANTIPUR, P.O.- BHARALUMUKH, DISTRICT- KAMRUP, ASSAM.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER (CONSTRUCTION), N.F. RAILWAY, MALIGAON, GUWAHATI- 781011.

¶8

2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTION) CONSTRUCTION ORGANISATION MALIGAON GUWAHATI- 781011.

¶9

3:THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTION) N.F. RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI- 781011.

¶10

4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KAMRUP (M)

¶11

HENGRABARI GUWAHATI-781036

¶12

5:THE CIRCLE OFFICER AZARA REVENUE CIRCLE AZARA, PIN-78101

¶13

Page No.# 2/3

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. N S THAKURIA

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I.

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

¶17

ORDER

¶18

01.03.2023

¶19

Heard Ms. NS Thakuria, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri K Gogoi, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the Railways-respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 whereas Shri B Deuri, learned State Counsel, Assam appears for the newly impleaded respondent nos. 4 and 5, who are respectively the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) and the Circle Officer, Azara Revenue Circle.

¶20

Considering the subject matter and the broad consensus arrived at in the Bar, the writ petition is disposed of at the motion stage itself.

¶21

The principal grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the demarcation of the land belonging to him. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 1992, certain lands were acquired from Village-Mikirpara Chakardoi under Mouza-Ramcharani in the district of Kamrup for construction of railway line under the Gauhati-Jogighopa project after which the line was constructed.

¶22

The petitioner, who owns a Petrol Pump, had noticed that the Railway authorities had started constructions of some pillars inside the campus of the petitioner. The petitioner, accordingly had submitted a representation dated 03.01.2023 to demarcate the land and accordingly, stop the construction work by the Railways in the form of erection of pillars.

¶23

The issue of demarcation is one of the notified services under the Assam Right to Service Act, 2012. After the enactment, an Office Memorandum dated 21.12.2020 has

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

also been issued by the Revenue Department giving the detailed procedure for taking any action under the said Act. In any event, the subject of demarcation cannot be looked into by a Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the same would require adducing of evidence which is out of the ambit of a writ Court.

¶26

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is closed by giving liberty to the petitioner to take recourse of the Assam Right to Public Service Act, 2012 along with the guidelines laid down in the Office Memorandum dated 21.12.2020. In the event of such recourse being taken, the concerned authorities shall address the issue raised by the petitioner expeditiously and preferably within an outer limit of 4 months from the date of receipt of such application.

¶27

Writ petition, accordingly stands disposed of.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Comparing Assistant

Mani Ram Kalita v. the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mani Ram Kalita v. the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chinar Steel Segments Centre Private Ltd. and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

K D Iron and Steel and Co. and Anr. Vs Chinar Steel Segments Centre Private Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Assent Chemicals Ltd., Vs Siddharth Singh and 5 Ors.

Ajit Kumar Borah and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Tanzima Ahmed Vs the Union of India and 4 Othrs

M/S Shivam Pipe Industries Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.