Gauhati HC in Abed Ali vs. State of Assam [30.01.2019 & 10.11.2020]

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT 

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

Case No. : WP(C) 240/2018 

1:ABED ALI R/O- VILL- BELTOLI, P.S. JOGIGHOPA, P.O. BALAPARA 

2: ABUL HUSSAIN R/O-VILL- BALAPARA SOUTH P.S. JOGIGHOPA P.O. BALAPARA 

3: LATIF AHMED R/O- VILL- BALAPARA SOUTH P.S. JOGIGHOPA P.O. BALAPARA

4: MOHSIN AHMED R/O-VILL- BELTOLI P.S. JOGIGHOPA P.O. BALAPARA

5: ABU AKKAS ALI R/O- VILL- BELTOLI P.S. JOGIGHOPA P.O. BALAPARA

6: RAHMAN ALI R/O- VILL-BELTOLI P.S. JOGIGHOPA P.O. BALAPARA

7: MONSER ALI R/O- VILL- BALAPARA P.S. JOGIGHOPA P.O. BALAPARA

8: JAFAR ALI Page No.# 2/4 R/O-VILL-BELTOLI P.S. JOGIGHOPA P.O. BALAPARA

9: SABED ALI R/O- VILL- BELTOLI P.S. JOGIGHOPA P.O. BALAPARA

10: TOSER ALI@ TASER ALI R/O-VILL- BELTOLI P.S. JOGIGHOPA P.O. BALAPARA

11: OMAR ALI R/O-VILL-BALAPARA P.S. JOGIGHOPA P.O. BALAPAR 

VERSUS 

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE LR DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI 

2:THE DIRECTOR LAND RECORDS AND SURVEY ASSAM KHANAPARA GUWAHATI

3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BONGAIGAON P.O.- BONGAIGAON ASSAM

4:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER (CIVIL) NORTH SALMARA ABHAYAPURI P.O.- BONGAIGAON

5:THE CIRCLE OFFICER/ SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER (CIVIL) BOITAMARI REVENUE CIRCLE BOITAMARI 

6:ABDUL MOTLEB R/O- VILL- HOKODOBA P.S. JOGIGHOPA P.O. BALAPARA 

7:NUR ISLAM R/O- VILL- HOKODOBA PART I P.S. JOGIGHOPA P.O. BALAPARA

8:JURAN ALI R/O- VILL- HOKODOBA PART I P.S. JOGIGHOPA P.O. BALAPARA

9:OSMAN ALI R/O- VILL- HOKODOBA PART I P.S. JOGIGHOPA P.O. BALAPARA

10:AZAHAR R/O- VILL- HOKODOBA PART I P.S. JOGIGHOPA P.O. BALAPARA

11:BABAR ALI R/O- VILL- HOKODOBA PART I P.S. JOGIGHOPA P.O. BALAPAR 

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H DAS

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM 

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA 

 ORDER

30.01.2019 

Heard Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue Department, respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Also heard Mr. A. Chakraborty, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and Mr. P. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent Nos. 6 to 11.

The learned counsel for the private respondents prays for and is granted 3(three) weeks' time to file Page No.# 4/4 affidavit-in-opposition in the matter.

In this writ petition it has been projected that VGR land in question is under illegal occupation of encroachers and despite submitting representations before the authorities for getting the land vacated from the encroachers, no action has been taken. In the affidavit-in-opposition sworn by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner, Bongaigaon, encroachment of the VGR land is admitted and it appears that the Deputy Commissioner, Bongaigaon has washed his hands in the matter by writing a letter to the Circle Officer, Boitamari seeking clarification from him. Accordingly, prima facie it appears that the Deputy Commissioner, Bongaigaon has violated the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2011 11 SCC 396 wherein the following direction has been issued to all the State Governments in the Country:-

"Before parting with this case we give directions to all the State Governments in the country that they should prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorized occupants of Gram Sabha/ Gram Panchayat /Poramboke /Shamlat land and these must be restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the common use of villagers of the village. For this purpose the Chief Secretaries of all State Governments/Union Territories in India are directed to do the needful, taking the help of other senior officers of the Governments. The said scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of such illegal occupant, after giving him a show cause notice and a brief hearing. Long duration of such illegal occupation or huge expenditure in making constructions thereon or political connections must not be treated as a justification for condoning this illegal act or for regularizing the illegal possession. Regularization should only be permitted in exceptional cases e.g. where lease has been granted under some Government notification to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or where there is already a school, dispensary or other public utility on the land."

Accordingly, this Court is inclined to issue a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Bongaigaon (respondent No.3) to file an affidavit before this Court within a period of 3(three) weeks from today to show cause as to why the non-compliance of the aforesaid direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court should not be reported to the Chief Secretary of the State with a direction to ensure strict and prompt compliance of the said order.

A copy of this order may be provided to Mr. A. Chakraborty, learned Govt. Advocate for necessary compliance.

List the matter on 27.02.2019.

___________________________________________________________________________________

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI 

ORDER 

Date : 10-11-2020 

Heard Shri H Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. K Phukan, learned State Counsel, Assam, who has placed before this Court a copy of written instruction dated 21.10.2020. Ms. N Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department is present. 

The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to encroachment of a Government land at Hokodoba, Gomath which is a VGR land. 

Shri Das, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2011) 11 SCC 396 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has strictly laid down that VGR land is not to be allotted and the same should be preserved. 

As per the instructions received, Ms. K Phukan, learned State Counsel has submitted that necessary action for eviction was already undertaken and the encroachers have been evicted. 

At the same time, Shri Das, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it was for the third time that the land was the subject matter of encroachment and that the petitioners apprehend that even in future, the land may be encroached. 

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the authorities to ensure that the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Singh (supra) is strictly followed and no encroachment is done upon the aforesaid VGR land. 

A copy of the written instruction dated 21.10.2020 is made a part of the records. 

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.