Gauhati High Court
Padmananda Choudhury vs Sikandar Ali on 17 July, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Page No.# 1/13
GAHC010097652025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1486/2025
PADMANANDA CHOUDHURY
CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD (BORDER ROADS AND NEC WORKS) ASSAM,
CHANDMARI GUWAHATI 03
VERSUS
SIKANDAR ALI
S/O- LATE SAFAR ALI, R/O- VILL.- LAOGAON, P.O. SOULMARI, DIST.
NAGAON, ASSAM
2:JIAUR RAHMAN
S/O- ABDUL SUBHAN
R/O- VILL.- LAOGAON
P.O. SOULMARI
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
3:RUKSHANA KHATUN
W/O- JIAUR RAHMAN
R/O- VILL.- LAOGAON
P.O. SOULMARI
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
4:THE STATE OF ASSAM
TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
ASSAM
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6.
5:THE UNION OF INDIA
TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
Page No.# 2/13
INDIA
MINISTRY OF PANCHAYAT RAJ
J.P. BUILDING
25
K.G. MARG
NEW DELHI-01.
6:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
NAGAON
P.O. AND DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
7:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PWD
NAGAON
BARHAMPUR AND RUPAHIHAT TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVISION
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
8:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
RUPAHI REVENUE CIRCLE
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
9:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
NAGAON SADAR REVENUE CIRCLE
P.O. AND DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
10:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
KHAGORIJAN ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT
SENSOWA
NAGAON
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
11:THE SECRETARY OF LAOGAON GAON PANCHAYAT
LAOGAON
P.O. SOLMARI
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
12:K. K. ENGINEERS
HOUSE NO. 35
NIZARAMUKH PATH
Page No.# 3/13
SANTIPUR HILL SIDE
P.O. BHARALUMUKH
DIST. NAGAON
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS M DAS,
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR P K BASU,SC, P AND R.D.,MR. P K
ROYCHOUDHURY
Linked Case : WP(C)/1129/2024
SIKANDAR ALI AND 2 ORS.
S/O- LATE SAFAR ALI
R/O- VILL.- LAOGAON
P.O. SOULMARI
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
2: JIAUR RAHMAN
S/O- ABDUL SUBHAN
R/O- VILL.- LAOGAON
P.O. SOULMARI
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
3: RUKSHANA KHATUN
W/O- JIAUR RAHMAN
R/O- VILL.- LAOGAON
P.O. SOULMARI
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 9 ORS
TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
ASSAM
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6.
2:THE UNION OF INDIA
TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA
MINISTRY OF PANCHAYAT RAJ
J.P. BUILDING
Page No.# 4/13
25
K.G. MARG
NEW DELHI-01.
3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
NAGAON
P.O. AND DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
P.W.D. (ROADS)
ASSAM
CHANDMARI
GUWAHATI-3.
5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PWD
NAGAON
BARHAMPUR AND RUPAHIHAT TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVISION
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
6:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
RUPAHI REVENUE CIRCLE
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
7:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
NAGAON SADAR REVENUE CIRCLE
P.O. AND DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
8:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
KHAGORIJAN ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT
SENSOWA
NAGAON
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
9:THE SECRETARY OF LAOGAON GAON PANCHAYAT
LAOGAON
P.O. SOLMARI
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
Page No.# 5/13
10:K. K. ENGINEERS
HOUSE NO. 35
NIZARAMUKH PATH
SANTIPUR HILL SIDE
P.O. BHARALUMUKH
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
------------
Advocate for : MR. P K ROYCHOUDHURY
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 9 ORS
Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/2099/2025
K K ENGINEERS
REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
SRI KAMAL KUMAR DAS
ADDRESS HOUSE NO. 35
NIZARAMUKH PATH
SANTIPUR HILL SIDE
P.O. BHARALUMUKH
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
VERSUS
SIKANDAR ALI AND 10 OTHERS
S/O- LATE SAFAR ALI
R/O- VILL.- LAOGAON
P.O. SOULMARI
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
2:JIAUR RAHMAN
S/O- ABDUL SUBHAN
R/O- VILL.- LAOGAON
P.O. SOULMARI
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
3:RUKSHANA KHATUN
W/O- JIAUR RAHMAN
R/O- VILL.- LAOGAON
P.O. SOULMARI
DIST. NAGAON
Page No.# 6/13
ASSAM
4:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DISPURGUWAHATI 06
5:THE UNION OF INDIA
TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA
MINISTRY OF PANCHAYAT RAJ
J.P. BUILDING
25
K.G. MARG
NEW DELHI-01.
6:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
NAGAON
P.O. AND DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
7:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
P.W.D. (ROADS)
ASSAM
CHANDMARI
GUWAHATI-3.
8:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PWD
NAGAON
BARHAMPUR AND RUPAHIHAT TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVISION
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
9:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
RUPAHI REVENUE CIRCLE
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
10:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
NAGAON SADAR REVENUE CIRCLE
P.O. AND DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
11:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Page No.# 7/13
KHAGORIJAN ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT
SENSOWA
NAGAON
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
12:THE SECRETARY OF LAOGAON GAON PANCHAYAT
LAOGAON
P.O. SOLMARI
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
————
Advocate for : MR P K BASU
Advocate for : SC
REVENUE appearing for SIKANDAR ALI AND 10 OTHERS
BEFORE
Hon’ble MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
JUDGMENT & ORDER
Advocates for the petitioners : Shri P.K. Roy Choudhury, Advocate.
Advocates for the respondents : Shri S. Dutta, learned SC, P&RD [R-1]
Ms. A. Gayan, CGC (R-2)
Shri D. Nath, Sr. Govt. Advocate [R. Nos. 3 to 8]
Shri P.K. Basu, Advocate [R-10]
Date of hearing : 17.07.2025
Date of judgment : 17.07.2025
Page No.# 8/13
The instant writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:
“In the premises aforesaid it is most respectfully prayed that this
Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this petition, call
for the records and issue Rule, calling upon the Respondents to
show cause as to why;
(A)a Writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued
directing the Respondents to stay the proposed eviction at
Beltoli Bazar under Nagaon Sadar Circle in Nagaon district till
enquiry is completed by the Respondent No. 3 through District
Development Committee (DDC) which was initiated on the
representation dated 4-1-2024 (Annexure-4);
(B)a Writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued
directing the Respondents to initiate an enquiry as regard
implementation of PMGSY Package No. AS-19-791 for
construction of R.C.C. Bridge which is not a part of PMGSY
Package No. AS-19-791;
(C)a Writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued
directing the Respondent No. 3 to dispose of the
representation dated 4-1-2024 (Annexure-4)(D) any such other or further order should not be
issued as may be deemed fit and proper under the facts and
circumstances of the case.
And-
Upon perusal of the records and hearing the parties the Rule
may be made absolute.
And for this act of kindness the petitioners as in duty bound
shall ever pray.”
2. This Court vide order dated 04.03.2024 while issuing notice, had granted
Page No.# 9/13
an interim protection by directing that the petitioners shall not be evicted from
their land which is located at Beltoli Daily Bazar under Khagorijan Anchalik
Panchayat till the returnable date. The matter was however not listed on the
returnable date and in the meantime, two interlocutory applications being
IA(C)/1486/2025 and IA(C)/2099/2025 have been filed for modifications /
vacation of the interim order and in those two interlocutory applications, there is
a direction for extension of the interim order.
3. Be that as it may, considering the subject matter involved, the writ petition
along with the two interlocutory applications are taken up for disposal together.
4. I have heard Shri P.K. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners.
I have also heard Shri S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, P&RD for the
respondent no. 1, Shri A. Gayan, learned C.G.C. for the respondent no. 2, Shri
D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate for the respondent nos. 3 to 8
and Shri P.K. Basu, learned counsel for the respondent no. 10.
5. The case projected in the writ petition is with regard to the apprehended
eviction of the petitioners from their establishment in the area in question. It is
projected that a PMGSY scheme under Package No. AS-19-791, namely “MRL-
05-Rupohigaon Uttar Etapara to Uttar Herapatty via Loagaon” is on for
upgradation of a road from Rupohigaon Uttar Etapara to Uttar Herapatty via
Laogaon. It is the case of the petitioners that as a part of the scheme, though
one RCC Bridge has been sanctioned, there is actually no river or low-lying area
on the said road requiring the RCC Bridge and in the projection of construction
of the RCC Bridge, the eviction of the petitioners have been sought to be made.
6. It is also contended that the eviction, if any, would require the prior
consent of the concerned Gaon Panchayat and Anchalik Panchayat. The
Page No.# 10/13
petitioners also contend of filing representation before the respondent
authorities, praying for an enquiry and stay of the proposed eviction and no
steps have been taken.
7. Shri PKR Choudhury, learned counsel has fairly submitted that public
interest would outweigh the private interest. However, as per the instructions
received, the RCC Bridge on the pretext of which the eviction has been sought
to be made is not a part of the scheme and by mala fide exercise of powers, the
petitioners have been sought to be evicted. He has accordingly submitted that
the interim order was rightly passed which is continuing.
8. Per contra, Shri D. Nath, the learned Senior Govt. Advocate, has submitted
that an entirely wrong projection of facts have been made in the writ petition.
He has also alleged that there are suppression of material facts and
misrepresentation of facts. It is submitted that the entire premises that there is
no river or low-lying area requiring the bridge on which the petition has been
structured is incorrect. He has submitted that in fact a timber bridge is existing
and the same is sought to be substituted by an RCC Bridge which is wholly in
the interest of public. He has categorically stated that the bridge is a part of the
aforesaid PMGSY scheme and is sought to be constructed to facilitate the
communication of the public in general.
9. The learned State Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the
averments made in the interlocutory application filed by the official respondent,
more particularly those made in paragraph 5 which reads as follows.
“That the applicant begs to state that the actual fact of the case is that
the road namely “MRL-05-Rupohigaon Uttar Etapara to Uttar Herapatty via
Laogaon” is a PMGSY major rural link comprises segments of 6 (six)
different rural roads and connect directly or indirectly 24 Nos. of
habitations. The road alignment as per Online Management Monitoring
Page No.# 11/13and Accounting System (in short OMMAS) portal of NRRDA and as per the
sanctioned DPR found to be started from Beloguri was generated and
available in OMMAS Portal of PMGSY for OF ASSKhagarijan Block trace
map approved by the hon’ble MP, Nagaon on 05-12-2021. The GPS
photographs taken during preparation of DPR established that the road
alignment NOTARY Natipara passes through Laogaon at Beltoli Bazar
existing Sataya wooden bridge and ends at Uttar Herapatty. This
alignment passes through the existing timber bridge at Beltoli Bazar. The
said timber bridge is at Beltoli Bazar over the river Sonai and proposed
RCC Bridge sanctioned in the same location and hence the bridge
proposed was done after proper survey and enquiry.
A copy of the Major Rural Link comprises segment of 6 (six)
different rural roads is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-
A/2.
A copy of the list of 24 Nos. of habitations is annexed herewith and
marked as Annexure- A/3.
A copy of the GPS photographs taken during preparation of DPR is
annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-A/4.
A copy of the trace map approved by hon’ble MP, Nagaon is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure-A/5.”
10. The learned State Counsel has also placed before this Court certain
photographs taken by means of GPS indicating the location of the site where a
timber bridge is existing. He has also placed before this Court a communication
issued by the Executive Engineer PWRD dated 29.12.2023 to the Circle Officer
whereby it has been stated that the RCC bridge under the package would
replace the existing SPT foot Bridge and for smooth execution of the proposed
RCC Bridge, the Right of Way (ROW) is required in both sides of the existing
SPT Bridge at Beltoli Bazaar area.
11. The learned State Counsel has fairly submitted that till now no notice for
Page No.# 12/13
eviction has even been issued and therefore, the writ petition is premature. He
accordingly submits that not only the interim order is required to be vacated,
the writ petition itself is to be dismissed. He has also drawn the attention of this
Court to the prayer made in the writ petition regarding the shifting of the site
and has submitted that the same being a policy decision which is reached by
taking into consideration all the relevant factors, such prayers are not
maintainable.
12. Shri PK Basu, learned counsel for the respondent no. 10, who is the
applicant in I.A.(Civil)/2099/2025 endorses the submission advanced by the
learned State Counsel. The submissions of Sri Nath, the learned Senior Govt.
Advocate is also supported by Sri S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, P&RD and
Ms. A. Gayan, learned CGC.
13. The rival submissions have been duly considered.
14. It clearly appears that the projection in the writ petition is that the RCC
Bridge in question is not a part of the scheme.
15. The said averment and projection is however categorically disputed and
the materials placed on record would show that the said RCC Bridge is indeed a
part of the scheme. The statements made in the writ petition also appears to be
misleading by stating that there is no low lying area or river requiring a bridge.
The materials placed on record including the GPS photographs would show that
not only there is a low lying area which is filled with water, there is also an
existing wooden bridge which is to be replaced by the RCC Bridge and such
construction clearly appears to be in the interest of public service. The
representations which have been annexed to the writ petition would also
indicate that there are other considerations for making the same before the
Page No.# 13/13
authorities.
16. Without even going to those aspects, this Court has also noted that till
date no notice has been issued to the petitioners requiring them to vacate the
area in question. In the considered opinion of this Court, the cause of action has
not even arisen making it ripe for the petitioners to approach this Court by filing
an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is a settled
position of law that the powers exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India is a discretionary power where prerogative writs are to be issued only in
extraordinary situations and writs are not to be issued on mere asking. As
already held, the cause of action is yet to arise.
17. Under the conspectus of the aforesaid decision, this Court is of the firm
opinion that no case for interference is made out at this stage and accordingly
the writ petition is dismissed. Apart from the fact that no case for interference
has been able to be made out by the petitioners at this stage, the private
interest of the petitioners has to give way to overwhelming public interest
involved in the construction of an RCC bridge which would cater to the needs of
the public in general.
18. Consequently, the interim order stands vacated.
19. It is needless to state that the process of eviction when carried out is
required to be done as per law.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant