Gauhati High Court
Goalpara Municipal Board vs The State Of Assam And Ors on 22 July, 2015
Author: Hrishikesh Roy
Bench: Hrishikesh Roy
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
WP(C) No.3074/2007
Goalpara Municipal Board,
Represented by its Chairman Sri Gautom Shome,
P.O. Goalpara, District - Goalpara, Assam. ... Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. The State of Assam,
Represented by the Secretary to the Government of Assam,
Revenue (Settlement) Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6.
2 Struck off Vide Order Dated 22.6.2007.
3 The Deputy Commissioner,
Goalpara, P.O. & Dist. Goalpara, Assam.
4 The Settlement Officer,
Goalpara, P.O. & Dist. Goalpara, Assam.
5 The Assistant Settlement Officer,
Balijana Circle, Balijana,
P.O. & Dist. Goalpara, Assam. ...Respondents.
For the petitioner : Mr. D.A. Kaiyum
Mr. N. Uddin,
Mr. S.H. Rahman. ... Advocates.
For the respondents : Mr. J. Handique ... GA.
WP(C) No.6494/2010
Assam State Transport Corporation, having its Head Office at Paltanbazar Guwahati, District - Kamrup, Assam. ... Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. State of Assam, Represented by the Secretary, Municipal Administration. 2 Goalpara Municipal Board, Represented by its Chairman P.O.& District - Goalpara, Assam. 3 The Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri, District-Dhubri. ...Respondents.
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY For the petitioner : Ms. U. Baruah ... Sr. Advocate.
Ms. J. Bora. ... Advocate.
For the respondents 1 & 3 : Mr. J. Handique ... GA.
For the respondent No.2 : Mr. D.A. Kaiyum,
Mr. S.H. Rahman
Mr. A. Ahmed. ... Advocates.
Date of hearing and Judgment : 22.7.2015.
WP(C) No.3074/2007 & WP(C) No.6494/2010
Page 1 of 4
2
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in the WP(C) NO.3074/2007. Also heard Ms. U. Baruah, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner-ASTC in the WP(C) No.6494/2010. The State authorities are represented by the learned Government Advocate Mr. J. Handique. Although Mr. M. Choudhury appears for the Director of Records, Assam, the name of respondent No.2 in the WP(C) No.3074/2007 was struck off vide order dated 22.6.2007.
2. In the WP(C) No.3074/2007, the Goalpara Municipal Board challenges the eviction notice dated 11.6.2007 in the Case No.2/2007 (Misc.), whereby the Municipal Board is ordered to vacate their occupation from the roadside land on the western boundary of the ASTC bus stand, on the Goalpara-Agia Road. The petitioner contends that the summary eviction procedure under Rule 18(2) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulation") could not have been invoked as the Municipal Board had applied for settlement of the Government land and a proposal for settlement is pending before the Revenue authorities.
3. On the other hand, the ASTC in their WP(C) No.6494/2010 projects that on the western side of the ASTC bus stop on the Goalpara-Agia P.W.D. Road, a small strip of roadside land exists which was being used for entry to the ASTC complex where 50 shop rooms have been constructed by the ASTC for augmenting their revenue. On the eastern boundary of the complex, toilet blocks for public use have been provided by the ASTC. The Goalpara Municipal Board encroached on the roadside space and constructed a public toilet at the point of entry to the ASTC complex and this toilet is not only causing nuisance to the neighbourhood but is also obstructing the entry of people from the Goalpara-Agia roadside, to the shops constructed within the ASTC complex.
4. The stand of the State authorities can be gathered from the counter WP(C) No.3074/2007 & WP(C) No.6494/2010 Page 2 of 4 3 affidavit filed in the WP(C) No.3074/2007 on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner of Goalpara on 4.1.2008 where it is averred that the place where the toilet was constructed by the Municipal Board is on the roadside PWD land and that space is necessary for expansion/widening of the PWD road. It is further averred that the Municipal Board was never in possession of the roadside area covered by Dag No.213 (old)/195 (new), prior to construction of the toilet in 1997. Moreover there was no proposal for settlement of this land with the Municipal Board.
5. Ms. U. Baruah, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the ASTC bus stand is located in the heart of Goalpara town and multiple shop rooms have been constructed on the ASTC complex by the Corporation, to augment their resources. Entry to the shop rooms in the complex is from the western boundary on the Goalpara-Agia Road and the toilet at the entry point is more of a nuisance value than of public utility. The Senior Counsel further submits that in order to cater to the public requirement, toilet block for public use has been constructed on the eastern end of the shopping complex within ASTC land and this facility will meet the public requirement.
6. The case documents show that the concerned space is a roadside Government land and the Municipal Board is not the owner thereof. Therefore summary ejectment from such roadside land is permissible, under Rule 18(2) of the Regulation. But at the same time, public toilet facilities must also be available in the town. The site map (Annexure-1) enclosed to the WP(C) No.6494/2010 indicates that a toilet block was constructed on the eastern boundary of the ASTC complex and this facility is available for public use.
7. During summary eviction under Rule 18(2) of the Regulation, hearing is not mandatory but considering the fact that the noticee is the Municipal Board, I deem it appropriate to direct the Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara to afford a hearing to the Goalpara Municipal Board before acting on the ejectment notice dated 11.6.2007 in the Case No.2/2007 (Misc.). This consideration is being shown since an interim order was passed by this Court on 22.6.2007 staying the impugned ejectment notice issued by the Addl. D.C., Goalpara. But while re-
WP(C) No.3074/2007 & WP(C) No.6494/2010 Page 3 of 4 4 examining the matter, the Deputy Commissioner should take into account the toilet block erected by the ASTC and the entry inconvenience caused from the Goalpara-Agia Road, to the ASTC shopping complex. Thus hearing should also be afforded to the ASTC while considering the grievances of the Municipal Board. After due consideration of all aspects, the Deputy Commissioner may order for execution of the ejectment notice issued under Rule 18(2) of the Land Revenue Regulation. The re-examination exercise should be completed within 8 weeks of receipt of this order and until a fresh decision is given, the Municipal Board shall not make construction on the PWD roadside land. It is ordered accordingly.
8. With the above order, these cases are disposed of to the extent indicated. A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. J. Handique, the learned Government Advocate for communication to the Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara.
JUDGE Datta.
WP(C) No.3074/2007 & WP(C) No.6494/2010 Page 4 of 4