Gaurab Dey Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

3:LUMDING MUNICIPAL BOARD REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRPERSON LUMDING MUNICIPAL BOARD ATMA RAM ROAD BACK SIDE OF POLICE STATION LUMDING LANKA HOJAI ASSAM PIN-782447

¶12

4:THE NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAYS REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER RAILWAY HEADQUARTER MALIGAON GUWAHATI-781011 ASSAM

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

5:DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER (DRM) NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAYS LUMDING HOJAI ASSAM PIN-782447

¶15

6:ESTATE OFFICER NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAYS LUMDING HOJAI ASSAM PIN-78244

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. T SOM, MR. P TELI,MR H DAS

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR. R K D CHOUDHURY (r-1 to 5),GA, ASSAM

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Date : 06.03.2026

¶21

Heard Ms. T. Som, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Deputy S.G.I. and Shri N. Das. learned State counsel.

¶22

2. Considering the facts and circumstances involved and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

¶23

3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner had purchased the possessory right of a plot of land in the year 2018, with commercial house having Holding No.174 in ward no.6 Mazid Road within the Lumding Municipal Board.

¶24

4. It is contended by the learned counsel that all necessary permissions and certificates were issued by the Lumding Municipal Board and thereafter, commercial electricity connection was taken and the petitioner had also paid all the tax and revenues. However, the petitioner was informed that the

¶25

Page No.# 3/4

¶26

property which he had purchased is railway property and apprehending certain action, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing WP(C)/1354/2023. The said writ petition was however withdrawn as being infructuous. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 06.07.2023 has been passed by the Estate Officer, NF Railway, Lumding towards sealing of the premises and also directing for dismantling/vacating the un-authorized construction on the occupied land within 7 days.

¶27

5. Ms. T. Som, the learned counsel has submitted that when this writ petition was moved on 24.07.2023 an interim order was passed and the said interim order is still in operation.

¶28

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a procedure has been laid down in the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 and without taking recourse to the said Act, the impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner causing immense prejudice to the petitioner.

¶29

7. Shri R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Deputy S.G.I. has however fairly conceded that from the impugned order, it does not appear that the provisions of the Act has been taken recourse to. He however submits that the land in question is railway property and the said aspect may be allowed to be resolved by taking the appropriate provisions of law.

¶30

8 . Shri N Das learned State counsel has submitted that the purchase of the land does not appear to have been done in accordance with law as same was done only before a Notary and there is no registered deed. He has also questioned the maintainability of writ petition by submitting that efficacious alternative remedy is available.

¶31

9 . Rival submissions have been duly considered.

¶32

10 . The impugned notice dated 06.07.2023, by the Estate Officer does not disclose that any exercise was conducted to come to a conclusion of unauthorized occupation wherein there is a requirement to give the petitioner an opportunity. As rightly pointed out by the learned Deputy S.G.I., the Act of 1971 lays down the procedure in case there is a requirement to evict unauthorized occupant of public premises.

¶33

11 . In the view of the matter, while the impugned notice dated 06.07.2023 is interfered with and set aside, liberty is granted to the respondent authorities to act in accordance with law including taking recourse of the Act of 1971, to take any action for eviction of un-authorized occupants. It is needless to add that in such exercise, the petitioner is required to be given an adequate opportunity to defend himself.

¶34

Page No.# 4/4

¶35

12 . With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. The interim order stands merged with this final order.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Gaurab Dey v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurab Dey v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Matiza Khatun and 221 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

M/S Deepak Construction Co. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Shri Ashok Kumar Sarma and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Showkat Ahmad and 158 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 9 Ors.

Hajrat Lannatin Nayem Vs Union of India and Anr.

M/S R S Cooling Appliances Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.