Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/7 vs Naba Kumar Das @ Naba Kumar on 16 July, 2025
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010115632025
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP/75/2025
UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, N.F. RAILWAY, MALIGAON,
GUWAHATI - 11
2: DIVISIONAL ENGINEER
MALIGAON
N.F. RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI - 11.
3: ESTATE OFFICER
N.F. RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI - 11
VERSUS
NABA KUMAR DAS @ NABA KUMAR
S/O- NAGEN DAS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PADUMBORI, P.O. -
GOTANAGAR, GUWAHATI, PIN - 781033, DIST. - KAMRUP(M), ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. G PEGU,
Advocate for the Respondent : ,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
ORDER
Date : 16-07-2025
Heard Mr. G. Pegu, learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears for
Page No.# 2/7
the respondent on call, though notice deemed to have been served upon them,
as per record.
2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioners have put to challenge the correctness or otherwise of the judgment
and order dated 26.09.2023, passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.
1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati (appellate authority hereinafter), in Misc. Appeal No.
76/2021.
3. It is to be noted here that vide judgment and order dated 26.09.2023, the
learned appellate authority had allowed the appeal by setting aside the eviction
order, dated 25.08.2021, passed by the Estate Officer, N.F. Railway, Maligaon, in
Misc. Eviction Case No. EO/MLG/02/2021, for eviction of the appellant
(respondent herein) without taking into consideration the factual aspect of the
matter.
4. Mr. Pegu, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Railway has
been allowed an area, by the Government of Assam, long back in public
interest, including the land at East Gotanagar, covered by Dag No. 588 of Village
Gotanagar, under Mouza Ramcharani, now Mouza Jhalukbari, and in this
respect, a cadastral map, dated 11.01.1967, was issued by the then Land
Acquisition Officer, B.B.B & RLY ACO. Branch, Guwahati by showing Railway
land, being Annexure – 1, and that the said Dag, No. 588 is situated at East
Gotanagar, which is now re-numbered as Dag Nos. (New) –
213/214/215/216/217/218/219/220/221/222/223, is a Railway land and in the
Dag Chita Register, the same has been mutated in the name of the Railway by
the Government of Assam, Revenue Department vide Annexure – 2.
4.1. Mr. Pegu further submits that the Railway has created plots, over Dag No.
Page No.# 3/7
588(Old) by giving new plot number and that respondent had encroached the
Railway land and the Estate Officer, N.F. Railway, Maligaon served him an
eviction notice, under Section 4(i) of the Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (1971 Act hereinafter) on 09.07.2021, under
Sr. DEN/MLG’s plan No. T/24/2014, showing the unauthorized encroachment of
the Railway land and directed to show cause on or before 04.08.2021, by
appearing before the Estate Officer in person or through duly authorized
representative. Thereafter, on date fixed the respondent could not produce any
documents to prove his title over the land, but he had produced some Electricity
bills, GMC Tax payment receipts, etc. to show his length of occupation of the
said plot of land and those documents do not prove his title over the land in
question and as the length of occupation of Railway land unauthorizedly, does
not confer any right to him to occupy the railway land, an eviction order dated
25.08.2021, was issued by the Estate Officer, N.F. Railway for vacation of the
aforesaid railway land by the respondent, vide Annexure – 5. Thereafter, the
respondent herein had challenged the aforementioned eviction order by filing an
appeal, under Section 9 of the 1971 Act, before the court of learned District
Judge, Kamrup (M) and the same was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 76/2021,
and the same was listed with other analogous matters, including Misc. Appeal
No. 28/2015, wherein the present petitioners have filed the written objection
and also relied upon the said written objection at the time of hearing of Misc.
Appeal No. 76/2021.
4.2. Further submission of Mr. Pegu is that in the earlier eviction notice against
the respondent, the boundary of the land in question was not mentioned in the
Eviction Case No. EO/MLG/4396/2014 and on that ground, the eviction order
was earlier set aside by the learned Additional District Judge, FTC No. 4,
Page No.# 4/7
Kamrup (M) at Guwahati. Thereafter, the Railway had issued fresh eviction
notice on 09.07.2021 and after hearing both the parties, the eviction order
dated 25.08.2021, was passed vide Annexure – 7. Thereafter, the respondent
herein had challenged the aforementioned eviction order by filing Misc. Appeal
No. 76/2021 and thereafter, hearing both the parties, the learned appellate
court had set aside the eviction order.
4.3. Mr. Pegu also submits that being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached
this court by filing the present petition mainly on following two grounds:-
(i) That, the learned appellate authority had failed to appreciate the
eviction notice issued to the respondent, under Section 4 of the
1971 Act, which contains all the requirements as specified under
Sub-Section 2 of Section 4 of the 1971 Act and also in the said
notice it was mentioned as to how the Estate Officer formed his
opinion that the land in question is a public premises, belonging to
the Railway and before issuance of notice under Section 4 of the
1971 Act, no mandates of Section 2(e) is required since Section 2(e)
is a definition of what constitute public premises and it is not a
mandate or requirement and as such, the impugned judgment and
order is illegal, arbitrary.
(ii) That, the learned appellate authority has failed to consider and
appreciate that the Estate Officer has heard the respondent in
person and asked him to produce documents in respect of his title
over the land, which in fact is a Railway land and which he has been
illegally and unauthorizedly occupying and as he has not been able
to produce any relevant documents in this regard, the eviction order
has been passed and therefore, there is no question of violation of
Page No.# 5/7the principle of natural justice and equity as alleged.
4.4. It is the further submission of Mr. Pegu that pursuant to order of this court
dated 04.06.2025, the petitioner has brought the judgment in Misc. Appeal
No.28/2015 on record by filing additional affidavit and that this court while
dealing with CRP No. 15/2025, 16/2025 and 17/2025, in connection with similar
subject matter, and similar plot of land, under same dag and patta number, had
allowed the said petitions by setting aside the impugned judgment and order
passed in Misc. Appeal No. 82/2021, 80/2021 and 83/2021 and remand the
aforesaid matter back to the learned appellate authority, to decide the matter
afresh, as to whether the land in question is a Railway land or a Government
Khas land and if it is a Railway land, whether the appellant has the right to
occupy the same on the basis of any legal document. Therefore, Mr. Pegu
submits that this matter may also be remanded to the learned appellate
authority to decide the aforesaid issues, by setting aside the impugned
judgment and order so passed by it.
5. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, I have
carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record
and also perused the judgment and order dated 26.09.2023, passed by the
learned appellate authority, in Misc. Appeal No. 76/2021 and also perused the
judgment dated 05.06.2018, passed in Misc. Appeal No. 28/2015.
6. It appears that vide judgment, dated 05.06.2018, in Misc. Appeal No.
28/2015, the learned Additional District Judge No. 4, FTC, Kamrup (M) at
Guwahati had set aside the order dated 10.02.2015, passed by the Estate
Officer, N.F. Railway, Maligaon, in Eviction Case No. EO/MLG/4396/2014, under
Section 5(1) of the 1971 Act. It also appears that the learned appellate authority
in the aforesaid judgment had set aside the eviction order on the ground that
Page No.# 6/7
minimum particulars, necessary to identify the plot of land in question has not
been given, except the measurement of the plot of land and also on the ground
that the conclusion so arrived at by the Estate Officer is in perfunctory manner,
without considering the representation/communication given by the present
respondent and thereafter, set aside the same. Thereafter, admittedly, fresh
notice was issued to the respondent herein in Eviction Case No.
EO/MLG/02/2021.
7. It is to be noted here that in the impugned judgment, the learned appellate
authority had observed that the earlier decision of the learned appellate
authority, in Misc. Appeal Case No. 28/2015, is final under Section 10 of the
1971 Act and as such, fresh eviction petition cannot be filed before the Estate
Officer, N.F. Railway.
8. I have carefully perused the Section 10 of the 1971 Act, which read as
under:-
“10. Finality of orders. – Save as otherwise expressly
provided in this Act, every order made by an estate
officer or appellate officer under this Act shall be
final and shall not be called in question in any
original suit, application or execution proceeding and
no injunction shall be granted by any court or other
authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken
in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this
Act.”
9. A careful perusal of the Section 10 of the 1971 Act indicates that what it
prohibits is the order passed by the Estate Officer or the Appellate Officer under
Act not the appellate court and the meaning of the aforementioned Section
cannot be extended to an appeal preferred before the appellate court against
the order of the Estate Officer or the Appellate Officer under the Act. It is to be
Page No.# 7/7
noted here that appellate court and appellate officer are two different
authorities.
10. Further, it appears from the impugned judgment and order that the
learned appellate authority while deciding the appeal failed to consider two vital
aspects as to whether the land was a Railway land and whether the respondent
herein had produced any document which permits him to occupy the Railway
land and it appears that answer to these two issues will clinch the matter.
11. Under such circumstances, this court is constrained to accept the
submission, so advanced by Mr. Pegu, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 26.09.2023, stands set
aside and quashed and the matter stands remanded to the learned appellate
authority, to decide the issue afresh, as indicated in para No.10, after giving an
opportunity of being heard to the respondent herein.
12. The aforementioned exercise shall be carried out as soon as practicable,
preferably, within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of receipt of the
certified copy of this order.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
[ad_1]
Source link