Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/4705/2013 on 13 November, 2025
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No. 1/22
GAHC010119782013
2025:GAU-AS:15798
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Writ Petition (C) no. 4705/2013
1. M/s Royal Coal Products, Tirap Gaon, Sail Line, Ledo,
Margherita Sub-Division, P.O.- Ledo, P.S.- Margherita,
District - Tinsukia, Assam, Pin - 786182, represented
by its sole Proprietor Sri Khitish Debnath.
2. Sri Khitish Debnath, S/o - Sri Sarat Debnath, R/o -
Ledo Road Gaon, P.O.- Ledo, P.S.- Margherita, District
- Tinsukia, Assam, Pin-786182.
..................Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Assam, represented by its Chief
Secretary, Government of Assam, Dispur, Guwahati -
6, Assam.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia, District -
Tinsukia, Pin - 786125.
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Civil, Margherita Sub-
Division, Margherita, District - Tinsukia, Assam Pin -
786181.
Digitally signed by
4. The Circle Officer, Margherita Revenue Circle,
Ananta Konwar
Margherita, District - Tinsukia, Assam, Pin - 786181.
Date: 2025.11.20
17:29:49 +05'30'
Page No. 2/22
5. The Circle Inspector, Digboi Sub-Division, Margherita,
District - Tinsukia, Assam, Pin - 786171.
6. The Officer In-Charge, Margherita Police Station, P.O.-
Margherita, Margherita, District - Tinsukia, Assam Pin -
786181.
7. The Officer In-Charge, Ledo Out Post, Margherita
Police Station, Margherita, District - Tinsukia, Pin -
786182.
8. The General Manager, North Eastern Coalfields, Coal
India Limited, Margherita, District - Tinsukia, Pin -
786181.
9. The Manager, North Eastern Coalfields, Coal India
Limited, Margherita, District - Tinsukia, Pin - 786181.
10. The Manager, Ledo Open Casting Production, North
Eastern Coalfields, Coal India Limited, Margherita,
District - Tinsukia, Pin - 786182.
11. The Manager - Personnel, Coal India Limited, Tirap
Colliery Agent Office, P.O. - Ledo, District - Tinsukia,
Pin - 786182.
12. The Mining Officer, North Eastern Coalfields, Coal
India Limited, Margherita, District - Tinsukia, Pin -
786182.
13. The General Manager, District - Industries &
Commerce Center, Tinsukia, Government of Assam,
District - Tinsukia, Pin - 786125.
14. The Regional Executive Engineer, Pollution Control
Board, Assam, Regional Office, Dibrugarh, District -
Dibrugarh, Assam, Pin - 786003.
...................Respondents
Page No. 3/22
BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY Advocates :
Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Choudhury, Advocate Respondent nos. 1 to 7 : Mr. N. Das, Junior Government Advocate, Assam Respondent nos. 8 to 12 : Mr. M.Z. Ahmed, Senior Advocate;
Mr. B. Dutta, Senior Advocate; and Mr. A.M. Dutta, Advocate.
Date on which judgment is reserved : NA Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 13.11.2025
Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment ? : No Whether the full judgment has been pronounced ? : Yes JUDGMENT & ORDER Invoking extra-ordinary and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have instituted the present writ petition seeking inter-alia a direction to declare that the demolition exercise carried in the business premises of the petitioner no. 1 firm was illegal and unauthorized. The petitioners have also sought for a direction to the respondent authorities to pay adequate compensation to the petitioners to the extent of Rupees Two Crores for the alleged arbitrary and unauthorized action of the respondent authorities towards demolition of the petitioner no. 1 firm's business premises. A direction has also been sought for to register a case against the respondents, named as accused, in a First Information Report [FIR] lodged by the petitioner no. 2 before the respondent no. 7.
Page No. 4/222. The petitioners have stated that the petitioner no. 1 is a proprietorship concern ['the petitioner firm'] and it had installed a coke manufacturing unit in a plot of land and the petitioner no. 2 is the sole proprietor of the petitioner firm. The petitioners have claimed that in the coke manufacturing unit, it used to produce coke and other allied products. To support the fact about setting up of the coke manufacturing unit, the petitioners have stated that a No Objection Certificate [NOC] to install it was obtained from the jurisdictional Gaon Panchayat viz. Ledo Colliery Gaon Panchayat on 05.09.2007. A Certificate of Registration was also obtained from the Office of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Tinsukia on 20.05.2009. An Acknowledgement Certificate dated 04.06.2010 was also issued in the name of the petitioner firm by the District Industries & Commerce Centre, Tinsukia. The petitioner firm also obtained a Certificate of Registration on 17.08.2011 under the provisions of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003.
3. The petitioners have claimed that the coke manufacturing unit had been installed in a plot of land measuring 2 Bighas 1 Katha 4 Lessas, covered by Dag no. 160 & Periodic Patta no. 2 [new], situate at Village - Ledo Tikok, No. 2 NLR, Mouza - Makum, Sub-Division - Margherita, District - Tinsukia [hereinafter referred to as 'the subject-plot', for short]. It is claimed that the petitioner no. 2 is the owner of the subject-plot. To support such contention, a copy of a Jamabandi [Record-of-Rights] has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-5 and an entry recorded on 21.06.2004 in the said Jamabandi has been relied upon. The petitioners have asserted that land revenue in respect of the subject-plot was paid upto the year : 2013-2014. The petitioners have further stated that the coke manufacturing unit was registered under the Finance Act, 1984 read with the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and a Certificate to that effect was issued by the Superintendant, Service Tax Cell, Digboi on 03.09.2012. The Pollution Control Board, Assam had granted Consent to Operate a coke manufacturing unit for the period from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 as per terms and conditions mentioned therein. The petitioner no. 1 firm was also registered as a recognized bidder with M/s M.S.T.C. Limited, Kolkata vide a License granted upto 02.04.2013. An application submitted for Page No. 5/22 renewal of the No Objection Certificate [NOC] for the period from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014 was pending consideration before the Pollution Control Board, Assam [PCBA] authorities on the relevant date. The relevant date, according to the petitioners, was 26.07.2013.
4. The petitioners have stated that on 26.07.2013, the respondent nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5 from the Tinsukia District Administration authorities along with the respondent nos. 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12 from the respondent M/s Coal India Limited authorities paid visit to the coke manufacturing unit premises of the petitioner firm on the subject-plot and demolished the entire business establishment along with all its structures and machineries standing thereon. It is the case of the petitioners that such act of demolition was without any prior show cause notice. The petitioners were not afforded any opportunity of hearing prior to such illegal, arbitrary and unauthorized act of demolition. It is stated that regarding the incident dated 26.07.2013, a First Information Report [FIR] was lodged by the petitioner no. 2 before the respondent no. 7 on 26.07.2013 itself. But, the respondent no. 7 declined to accept and register the said FIR. Thereafter, the petitioner no. 2 had to send the FIR to the respondent no. 7 by registered post. The petitioners have claimed that the respondent authorities in M/s Coal India Limited for their vested interests of setting up their own establishment on the subject-plot, wanted to dispossess the petitioners, who were the recorded pattadars and lawful owners of the subject-plot having right, title and interest. With such projections, the petitioners have contended that the right of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution have been violated and the alleged acts of demolition was clearly illegal, arbitrary and unauthorized and therefore, the petitioners are entitled for the reliefs sought for in the writ petition.
5. I have heard Mr. A.K. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. N. Das, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 1 to 7; and Mr. M.Z. Ahmed, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. B. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A.M. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 8 - 12.
Page No. 6/226. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners in the course of his submissions, have reiterated the facts and the contentions recorded hereinabove. He has further submitted that the act of demolition was carried by the respondent authorities in M/s Coal India Limited. It is his submission that it is not established that the subject-plot belongs to the respondent M/s Coal India Limited.
6.1. Referring to the above-referred certificates / licenses, etc. granted by the authorities, he has submitted that the coke manufacturing unit was being run from the subject-plot after obtaining proper permission, licence, etc. and as such, there could not have been any act of demolition without any prior notice. If the respondent M/s Coal India Limited authorities had an ownership claim on the subject-plot and it fell within the definition of 'public premises' then any act of demolition ought to have been under the provisions of the Public Premises [Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants] Act, 1971. Even if it is assumed that the subject-plot is a Government land, then also the provisions of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 and the rules framed thereunder ought to have been followed by the District Administration. He has contended that the act of demolition carried on 26.07.2013 was clearly a highhanded, arbitrary, illegal and unauthorized action.
6.2. In support of his submissions regarding violation of the principles of natural justice, he has referred to the decisions in Whirpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others, [1998] 8 SCC 1. He has further submitted that it is settled proposition that any person in occupation of a parcel of land, cannot be dispossessed forcibly in a manner as that happened in the case in hand. The respondent M/s Coal India Limited authorities did not carry out the alleged act on the strength of any order of the District Administration. From the fact emerged from the Jamabandi under reference, it is clear that the petitioners are in bona fide possession of the subject-plot. He has also referred to the decisions in Bishan Das and others, vs. State of Page No. 7/22 Punjab and others, AIR 1961 SC 1570; and State of West Bengal and others vs. Vishnunarayan & Associates [P] Ltd. and another, [2002] 4 SCC 134.
7. Mr. Das, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 7 has extensively referred to the affidavits-in-opposition filed separately by the respondent no. 2, the respondent no. 3 and the respondent no. 6. It is submitted by him that the Tinsukia District Administration had no active role in carrying out the demolition in the lease hold area of North Eastern Coalfields of M/s Coal India Limited and they were responsible only for maintaining of law and order for which necessary steps were taken on 26.07.2013. He has submitted that as per revenue records, the name of the petitioner no. 2 was found recorded against Periodic Patta no. 2 [new] of Village
- Ledo Tikok, No. 2 NLR Grant in respect of the subject-plot along with the others. He has submitted that the name of the petitioner no. 2 was recorded on the strength of his possession and pursuant to an Order dated 21.06.2004 passed by the respondent no. 4 in Mutation Case no. 209/2004-2005.
7.1. As regards incident which occurred on 26.07.2013, he has submitted that the respondent no. 2 passed an Office Order on 18.07.2013 detailing an Executive Magistrate, Margherita to maintain law and order during the time of demolition of two coke manufacturing units including that of the petitioner no. 1. Following the Office Order of the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia [the respondent no. 2], the respondent no. 3 passed an Office Order on 23.07.2013 detailing the same Executive Magistrate, Margherita to maintain law and order during the time of operation on 26.07.2013. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer [SDPO], Margherita was also requested to deploy adequate force. He has further submitted that demolition of the petitioners' coke manufacturing unit was carried by the authorities in M/s Coal India Limited and the Executive Magistrate, Margherita was only detailed for maintaining law and order during the time of demolition of the two coke manufacturing units - one belonging to the petitioners and the other belonging to one Sri B. Ganesh. Both the coke manufacturing units were demolished on 26.07.2013.
Page No. 8/227.2. The respondent no. 6 has denied about receiving any FIR from the petitioner no. 2 in person and it has been mentioned by the respondent no. 6 that the FIR was received only by registered post and the said FIR was accordingly registered as Margherita Police Station Case no. 181/2013. Mr. Das has further submitted that other than the alleged act of demolition of the coke manufacturing unit on the subject-plot, there was no eviction exercise at any subsequent time and as on date, the petitioners are found operating its coke manufacturing unit on and from the subject-plot.
8. Mr. Ahmed, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent M/s Coal India Limited authorities has referred to the relevant events, mentioned in the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent nos. 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12, as to how the subject-plot came to the ownership of M/s Coal India Limited from the erstwhile M/s Assam Railways and Trading Company Limited. He has submitted that upon nationalization of the coal mines, all the assets of erstwhile M/s Assam Railways and Trading Company Limited; their lands including the subject-plot; buildings; and all other mining areas; stood vested in M/s Coal India Limited and on being so vested, M/s Coal India Limited has been paying all the land revenue as assessed by the revenue authorities. In respect of the subject-plot also, M/s Coal India Limited authorities has been paying land revenue all along being its landowner. He has further submitted that though M/s Coal India Limited authorities have been requesting time and again to the District Revenue authorities to mutate the name of M/s Coal India Limited in respect of the subject-plot, but the respondent District Revenue authorities did not carry out the same.
8.1. He has referred to a cadastral map [Annexure-A to the affidavit-in-opposition] to submit that the subject-plot falls within the parcel of land vested in M/s Coal India Limited. As the petitioner no. 2 had not acquired any right, title and interest over the subject-plot, the District Revenue authorities could not have granted mutation in favour of the petitioner no. 2 in respect of the subject-plot. As the petitioner no. 2 was found to have constructed a coke manufacturing unit on the subject-plot, an FIR was lodged before the Ledo Out Post by M/s Page No. 9/22 Coal India Limited authorities on 22.05.2012. The petitioner no. 2 was also served with a legal notice on 26.09.2012 to vacate the subject-plot. But, the petitioner no. 2 in spite of receiving the legal notice did not vacate the subject- plot.
8.2. As the petitioner no. 2 was found to have proceeded unauthorizedly with the act of installation of the coke manufacturing unit with no intention to vacate the subject-plot, M/s Coal India Limited authorities in a meeting held on 09.07.2013 at Margherita, presided over by the then Minister, Power & Industries, Assam and attendance by officials of the District Administration, apprised the situation and a decision was arrived in the said meeting to carry out a demolition exercise in respect of the coke manufacturing unit, claimed to be owned by the petitioner no. 2.
8.3. He has further submitted that the officials of M/s Coal India Limited authorities were at the spot to ensure safe and proper functioning of the machineries, provided to the District Administration officials. He has also referred to an Office Order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia on 18.07.2013 and the Order dated 23.07.2013 passed by the respondent no. 3 detailing an Executive Magistrate & Election Officer to maintain law and order during the time of operation on 26.07.2013.
8.4. Referring to Annexure-B to the affidavit-in-opposition, Mr. Ahmed has submitted that a parcel of land measuring 2819 Bighas 1 Katha 3 Lessas, covered by Periodic Patta no. 2 No. NLR stood vested in M/s Coal India Limited and from the Jamabandi [Record-of-Rights] annexed by the petitioner as Annexure-5 to the writ petition, it is evidently clear that the name of the petitioner no. 2 was mutated on 21.06.2004 on the basis of his claim as regards possession and not on the strength of any title owned through any registered sale deed or by inheritance. It is his submission that any mutation entry does not establish the right, title and interest of a person on a plot of land like the subject-plot. Since there was no right, title and interest over the subject-plot established in their favour, the petitioners are liable to be evicted as per law. He has further Page No. 10/22 submitted that when a direction was made to the District Revenue authorities to find out as to whether the subject-plot falls within the areas of land belonging to M/s Coal India Limited vested from M/s Assam Railways and Trading Company, whose name was previously recorded as the owner, the District Revenue authorities had expressed inability to do so on the ground of non-availability of records in their office. He has further submitted that from the periodic patta annexed to the affidavit-in-reply filed on 27.01.2025, it is evidently clear that a plot of land measuring 11 Bighas 2 Kathas 12 Lessas under Dag no. 160 in Village - Ledo Tikok, NLR Grant no. 2 belongs to M/s Coal India Limited.
8.5. Mr. Ahmed has submitted that all the parcels of land which had been vested in M/s Coal India Limited come under the purview of the Public Premises [Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants] Act, 1971 and therefore, the occupation of the subject-plot is clearly illegal and unauthorized. In support, he has referred to the decisions in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. vs. Madanlal Agrawal, [1997] 1 SCC 177; North Eastern Coalfields Coal India Limited vs. Mubarak Ali and others, [2005] 11 SCC 293; and H. Lakshmaiah Reddy and others vs. L. Venkatesh Reddy, [2015] 14 SCC 784 .
9. I have given consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials brought on record by the parties through their pleadings. I have also gone through the relevant statutory provisions wherein the learned counsel for the parties have placed reliance apart from the decisions cited by them in support of their respective submissions.
10. The Coal Mines [Nationalisation] Act, 1973 is an Act enacted by the Parliament and it provided for acquisition and transfer of the right, title and interest of the owners in respect of the coal mines specified in the Schedule thereto. The long title stated that it was enacted with a view to re-organising and reconstructing such coal mines so as to ensure rational, co-ordinated and scientific development and utilization of coal resources consistent with the growing requirements of the country, in order that the ownership and control of such Page No. 11/22 resources are vested in the State and thereby so distributed as best to subserve the common good and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. As per sub-section [1] of Section 3, on the appointed day [01.05.1973], the right, title and interest of the owners in relation to the coal mines specified in the Schedule stood transferred to, and vested absolutely in, the Central Government free from all encumbrances. Section 5[1] had provided power to the Central Government to direct vesting of rights in a Government company.
11. The relevant excerpts of the Schedule to the Coal Mines [Nationalisation] Act, 1973, which are relevant in the case in hand, are reproduced below :-
THE SCHEDULE Sl. Name of the mine Location of the mine Name and address of owners of the mine ASSAM 4 Baragolai Post Office Baragolai Assam Railway and Trading Company Ltd., Margherita 5 Ledo Post Office Ledo Assam Railway and Trading Company Ltd., Margherita 6 Namdang Post Office Baragolai Assam Railway and Trading Company Ltd., Margherita 7 Tipong Post Office Ledo Assam Railway and Trading Company Ltd., Margherita
12. It is stated that erstwhile M/s Assam Railways and Trading Company Ltd. ['the AR&TC Ltd.', for short], a company incorporated at London, was the original owner of the coal mines situated in the North Eastern Region of the country. Upon nationalisation of the coal mines under the Coal Mines [Nationalisation] Act, 1973 ['the Act, 1973', for short], the coal mines in the North Eastern Region stood vested in the Central Government, free from all encumbrances, and the Central Government, subsequently, directed that the right, title and interest of the owners in relation to all the coal mines referred to in Section 3 of the Act, 1973, except for certain mines specified therein, shall vest in M/s Coal Mines Authority Limited, a Government Company incorporated under the Companies Act. Subsequently, the name of M/s Coal Mines Authority Limited was changed to M/s Coal India Limited in accordance with law and the North Eastern Coalfields is a unit of M/s Coal India Limited.
Page No. 12/2213. In North Eastern Coalfields Coal India Limited [supra], the issue considered is whether the area leased out to M/s AR&TC Ltd. comes within the definition of 'mine' as defined in Section 2[h] of the Coal Mines [Nationalisation] Act. Section 2[h] of the Coal Mines [Nationalisation] Act has provided for the definition of 'mine'. A reference has been made to the decision in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. [supra] wherein the expression, 'mine', defined in Section 2[h], has been interpreted in the following manner :-
All properties or assets which fall within the definition of 'mine' in Section 2[h] and which are used for over a period of time and not temporarily, as necessary for proper functioning of mine, irrespective of whether or not belonging to owner of the mine, would vest in the Central Government by virtue of Section 3. Hence, even though lands and buildings solely used for the purposes of office or residence of officers and staff of the mine did not belong to the owner of the mine but belonged to a director of the owner company, right, title and interest therein, vested in the Central Government.
After considering the above interpretation, the Hon'ble Court has held as under
:-
9. Therefore, the effect of Section 3 has already been considered by this Court and it had been held by this Court that all the properties by virtue of this section vest in the Central Government and the definition of mine as defined in Section 2[h] is wide enough to include any land, building used for the purposes of residence of officers, staff of mine shall vest in the Central Government.
14. It has been claimed that upon nationalisation of the coal mines in the North Eastern Region, all the assets of the erstwhile M/s AR&TC Ltd. and their lands including the subject-plot of land, and buildings and all other mining operations stood vested in the North Eastern Coalfields, Coal India Limited ['NEC, CIL'] and it has been depositing the land revenue for the lands to the jurisdictional Page No. 13/22 Revenue Authority all throughout. It has been claimed that the subject-plot falls within the area of land, covered by Dag no. 160 & Periodic Patta no. 2[new]/1[old], located in Village - Ledo Tikok no. 2, NLR, Mouza - Makum, Sub-Division - Margherita which belongs lawfully to the North Eastern Coalfields, Coal India Limited. With such projections, the mutation granted in favour of the petitioner no. 2 in respect of the subject-plot by the jurisdictional Revenue Authority has been questioned.
15. The Public Premises [Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants] Act, 1971 ['the Act, 1971', for short] is an Act to provide for the eviction of unauthorised occupants from public premises and for certain incidental matters. The definitions of 'public premises' and 'unauthorised occupation' are provided in Section 2[e] and Section 2[g] respectively in the Act, 1971. Under Section 2[e][2], public premises includes properties owned or controlled by the Central Government or any Government company or any corporation established by or under a Central Act and owned or controlled by the Central Government. If the claims of the respondent M/s Coal India Limited to the effect that the subject-plot of land comes within the definition of 'public premises', and the petitioners are in 'unauthorised occupation' of the subject-plot are to be accepted, then for eviction of the petitioners from the subject-plot the respondent authorities in M/s Coal India Limited were/are obligated to follow the procedure laid down in the Act, 1971.
16. The procedure under the Act, 1971 involves an Estate Officer, appointed under Section 3, issuing a show-cause notice, as per the provisions of Section 4, to an unauthorised occupant asking him to explain why an eviction order should not be passed against him. The notice must be served in the prescribed manner. The show-cause notice shall specify the date for the occupant to appear before the Estate Officer with any evidence they wish to present. The alleged unauthorised occupant is required to show-cause within a stipulated period of time. When a show-cause notice is issued, the noticee, that is, the alleged unauthorised occupant of the public premises would not only be entitled to show-cause but would also be entitled to produce evidence in support of the Page No. 14/22 cause shown and to make oral submissions in support of his case. If, after considering the cause, if any, shown by the noticee in pursuance of the notice under Section 4 and any evidence produced by him in support of the same and after personal hearing, if any, the Estate Officer reaches a satisfaction that the public premises is in unauthorised occupation, the Estate Officer in exercise of powers conferred on him under Section 5 may make an order of eviction, for reasons to be recorded therein, directing that the public premises shall be vacated, on such date as may be specified in the order, by all persons who may be in occupation thereof or any part thereof. If any person refuses or fails to comply with the order of eviction within the stipulated period of time, the Estate Officer or any other officer duly authorized by the Estate Officer in that behalf may evict that person from, and take possession of, the public premises and may, for that purpose, use such force as may be necessary.
17. If the State or an instrumentality of the State is the owner of the concerned public premises then it must demonstrate fairness and reasonableness in the eviction proceedings, adhering to the principles of natural justice as mandated by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The burden of proof also lies on the landowner to establish that the occupant is in unauthorised occupation of public premises.
18. Admittedly, the procedure laid down in the Act, 1971 was not followed for eviction of the petitioners from the subject-plot by the respondent authorities in M/s Coal India Limited. In fact, from the materials on record and it is also the contention of the parties that the exercise undertaken on 26.07.2013 was not for eviction of the petitioners from the subject-plot but only for demolition of the coke manufacturing unit installed on the subject-plot.
19. The petitioners have, on the contrary, claimed that the coke manufacturing unit was set up on the subject-plot admeasuring 2 Bighas 1 Katha 4 Lessas [02B- 01K-04L], covered by Dag no. 160 & Periodic Patta no. 2[new], located in Village - Ledo Tikok no. 2, NLR, Mouza - Makum. In support of such claim, the petitioners have relied upon a copy of Jamabandi [Record of Right] issued in Page No. 15/22 favour of the petitioner no. 2. It has been claimed that the land revenue authority had been collecting land revenue in connection with the subject-plot of land from the petitioner no. 2 by issuing receipt in acknowledgment.
20. The petitioners have alleged that when the petitioner no. 2 sought to lodge an FIR before the In-Charge, Ledo Out Post [the respondent no. 7] on 26.07.2013 as regards the incident dated 26.07.2013, the respondent no. 7 declined to accept and register the FIR and the petitioner no. 2 had to send the FIR the respondent no. 7 by registered post. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Officer In-Charge, Margherita Police Station [the respondent no. 6], the respondent no. 6 categorically denied the allegation of the petitioners that the petitioner no. 2 had approached the respondent no. 6 with a view to lodge the FIR. It has been asserted that Ledo Out Post received the FIR by registered post and the same was entertained and follow up actions were also taken. The FIR was forwarded to the respondent no. 6 and the respondent no. 6, on receipt of the FIR, registered a case, Margherita Police Station Case no. 181/2013 for the offences under Sections 147/149/448/427/379, Indian Penal Code [IPC] and investigation was ordered. In the affidavit-in-reply filed in response to the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent no. 6, the petitioners reiterated their allegations regarding non-acceptance of the FIR by the respondent no. 7 on 26.07.2013 which compelled them to send the FIR by registered post on 26.07.2013.
21. In the affidavits-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 2 and the respondent no. 3 respectively, it is stated that a Letter detailing one Magistrate was issued to the respondent no. 8 in response to his request for providing the service of a Magistrate during demolition operation contemplated by the NEC, CIL in the leasehold area of Tirap Colliery, NEC, Margherita. The respondent no. 2 by an Office Order dated 18.07.2013 detailed an Executive Magistrate, Margherita for maintaining law and order during the time of demolition exercise of two coke manufacturing units including the one belonging to the petitioners, on 26.07.2013. On the basis of the Order dated 18.07.2013 of the respondent no. 2, the respondent no. 3 issued an Office Order dated 23.07.2013 detailing the Page No. 16/22 same Executive Magistrate, Margherita to maintain law and order during the time of operation on 26.07.2013 and also requested the Sub-Divisional Police Officer [SDPO], Margherita for deployment of adequate force. It is averred that the demolition was proposed and carried out by the NEC, CIL authorities as decided in a Meeting presided over by the Hon'ble Minister of Power, Industries & Commerce, Assam on 09.07.2013. It has been averred that the Magistrate was detailed from Civil Administration only for maintaining law and order during the time of demolition of coke manufacturing units.
22. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent nos. 8-12, it is asserted that the subject-plot belongs to the respondent M/s Coal India Limited authorities as per the provisions of the Act, 1973. It is averred that as the subject-plot was in unauthorised occupation of the petitioner no. 2 and he had constructed a coke manufacturing unit on it, an FIR was lodged at Ledo Out Post on 22.05.2012. Subsequently on 26.09.2012, a Legal Notice was also issued to the petitioner no. 2 to vacate the subject-plot and the said legal notice was duly received by the petitioner no. 2 on 01.10.2012. The copies of the FIR dated 22.05.2012, the Legal Notice dated 26.09.2012 and the Acknowledgement Card have been annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition as Annexure - E1, E2 and E3 respectively. But the petitioner no. 2 did not show any intention to vacate the subject-plot despite his illegal/unauthorized occupation.
23. The respondent nos. 8-12 have taken a stand in the affidavit-in-opposition that a Meeting was held on 09.07.2013 at Margherita between the officials of the District Administration, District Police and other departments of the State Government with the officials of the respondent M/s Coal India Limited. In the Meeting, which was presided over by the Hon'ble Minister of Power, Industries & Commerce, Assam, a decision was arrived at to demolish two coke manufacturing units operating from leasehold areas exclusively belonging to the respondent M/s Coal India Limited. A stand has been taken that pursuant to the decision taken in the Meeting dated 09.07.2013, the Management of M/s Coal India Limited provided the machineries required during the process of demolition and its personnel were present there to ensure safe and proper Page No. 17/22 functioning of the machineries and the operators of the machineries so deployed. The respondent nos. 8-12 have, thus, denied that the demolition of the coke manufacturing unit was carried out by them.
24. A copy of the Judgment delivered by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Margherita on 08.10.2018 in G.R. Case no. 555 of 2013 has been placed before the Court. From the Judgment dated 08.10.2018, it is noticed that G.R. Case no. 555 of 2013 arose out of the FIR, lodged by the petitioner no. 2, registered as Margherita Police Station Case no. 181 of 2013. After completing investigation into the case, Margherita Police Station Case no. 181 of 2013, the Investigating Officer [I.O.] of the case submitted a charge-sheet against four nos. of accused persons, who were officials of M/s Coal India Limited, finding a prima facie case of committing the offences under Section 447 and Section 427 of the IPC read with Section 34, IPC. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court framed charges under Section 447, Section 427 and Section 384 of the IPC against the accused persons. During the trial, the prosecution side examined seven nos. of prosecution witnesses. Before the Trial Court, points arose for determination inter-alia were : [i] whether the accused persons on 26.07.2013 at about 08-30 a.m. criminally trespassed into the campus of the informant with intent to commit an offence?; [ii] whether the accused persons on the same date, time and place committed mischief by destroying the factory of the informant? After evaluation of the materials/evidence on record, the Trial Court reached a view in the Judgment dated 08.10.2018 that the prosecution side failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. Answering the points in negative, the accused persons were acquitted from the charges. On a query made by this Court, the learned counsel for the parties have submitted that no appeal has been preferred against the Judgment dated 08.10.2018, meaning thereby, the Judgment dated 08.10.2018 resulting in acquittal of the accused persons had attained finality. Such subsequent events can be definitely looked at to advance the cause, more so, when such events have a bearing on the nature of the relief, as originally sought for.
Page No. 18/2225. In the affidavits-in-opposition of the respondent authorities in the Tinsukia District Administration and of the respondent authorities in M/s Coal India Limited, it has been admitted that on 26.07.2013, demolition of the coke manufacturing unit installed on the subject-plot was carried out. However, the respondent authorities in the Tinsukia District Administration and the respondent authorities in M/s Coal India Limited in their respective affidavit-in- opposition have made denial of their involvement in the demolition by attributing the act on each other. As the officials of the respondent M/s Coal India Limited authorities were already acquitted by the Trial Court vide the Judgment dated 08.10.2018 and the Judgment having attained finality, it is difficult to affix the liability to any of these respondents for the act of demolition of the coke manufacturing unit on 26.07.2013 in the present writ proceedings where the adjudication is made only on the basis of the pleadings of the parties.
26. The petitioners except making a claim for compensation to the extent of two crores from the respondent authorities have not placed any convincing materials on record as to how they had suffered losses to the extent of two crores. In the absence of any convincing materials with regard to the losses allegedly sustained by the petitioner, it is not possible to pass any direction to any of the respondents to make payment of any compensation amount. The quantification of the extent of loss sustained can only be determined in a full-fledged trial proceedings after the parties lead their evidence, oral as well as documentary. In such view of the matter, this Court does not find the present case as one where any direction to pay for the loss allegedly sustained by the petitioners can be made.
27. It has been observed in Bishan Das [supra] that a person who is in bonafide possession of any construction could not be removed except under authority of law and any executive action whereby a person in bonafide possession is dispossessed is in infringement of the person's fundamental rights. It has been held in Vishnunarayan & Associates [P] Ltd. [supra] to the effect that the State or its executive officers cannot interfere with the rights of others unless they can point to some specific provision of law, which authorizes their acts. In Page No. 19/22 the absence of any specific statutory provision, a person cannot be evicted by force by the State or its executive officers without following due course of law. It has been held in Whirlpool Corporation [supra] that a writ petition is maintainable for enforcement of any of the fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction.
28. In the Office Letter dated 26.04.2005 of the respondent no. 3 addressed to the respondent no. 8, annexed as Annexure-B of the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent nos. 8-12, the detailed break-up - Patta-wise & area-wise - surface land possessed by M/s AR&TC Ltd. earlier and by M/s Coal India Limited subsequently had been provided while asking for making necessary payment of land revenue, local rate, surcharge, etc. In the detailed break-up, it was mentioned that M/s Coal India Limited was in possession of a parcel of land measuring 2819 Bighas 1 Katha 3 Lessas [2819B-01K-03L], covered by Periodic Patta no. 2 NLR, at Ledo Tikak Village. The respondent no. 3, by the above Office Letter, requested the respondent no. 8 to deposit the land revenue, local rate, surcharge, etc. and in response, the amount was deposited by the respondent no. 8 by a Treasury Challan dated 06.05.2005. The matter of deposit of the amount towards land revenue, local rate, surcharge, etc. was informed by the respondent no. 8 to the respondent no. 3 by an Office Letter dated 10.05.2005.
29. In the Jamabandi [Record of Right] [Annexure-5 to the writ petition], it is reflected that the name of the petitioner no. 2 was included in respect of an area of land measuring 02B-01K-04L, covered by Dag no. 160 & Periodic Patta no. 2 [new], located in Village - Ledo Tikak No. 2, NLR and the name of M/s AR&TC Ltd. was included in respect of an area of land measuring 10B-02K-11L, covered by Dag no. 1 & Periodic Patta no. 2 [new], located in Village - Ledo Tikak No. 2 NLR. In the relevant entry in the remarks column, it is found mentioned that the name of the petitioner no. 1 was mutated on the basis of his possession.
Page No. 20/2230. It has not been explained by any of the parties herein that the area of land measuring 02B-01K-04L ['the subject-plot'] mutated in favour of the petitioner is part and parcel of the area of land measuring 10B-02K-11L under Periodic Patta no. 2 [new] or the area of land measuring 2819B-01K-03L under Periodic Patta no. 2 NLR, as mentioned in the detailed break-up given in the Office Letter dated 26.04.2005.
31. It has emerged from a perusal of the copy of the concerned Jamabandi [Record of Right] [Annexure-5 to the writ petition] that a case for mutation, Mutation Case no. 209 of 2004-2005 was registered for mutation of the name of the petitioner no. 2 in respect of the subject-plot and the subject-plot, admeasuring 02B-01K-04L, covered by Dag no. 160 & Periodic Patta no. 2[new], located in Village - Ledo Tikok no. 2, NLR, Mouza - Makum was ordered to be mutated in favour of the petitioner no. 2 by an Order dated 21.06.2004 passed by the Circle Officer, Margherita [the respondent no. 4].
32. It is settled that a mutation entry in revenue records does not confer any title on a person whose name appears in the Jamabandi [Record of Rights]. An entry in the revenue records or Jamabandi has only fiscal purpose, that is, payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entry. Mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered, to pay the land revenue in question. Mutation proceedings do not also decide title and cannot, thus, form basis for declaration of title. The decision in H. Lakshmaiah Reddy and others [supra] has also projected the above view.
33. Other than the mutation entry in the Jamabandi [Annexure-5], the petitioners have not annexed any other document in support of their claim for right, title and interest on the subject-plot. There is no supporting document to claim that the subject-plot is either an inherited property or a self-acquired property of the petitioner no. 2. Mere appearance of the name of the petitioner no. 2 in the revenue record or in the Jamabandi does not, therefore, go to show that the Page No. 21/22 petitioner no. 2 has acquired the right, title and interest on the subject-plot to become its owner. An order of mutation can be passed under the provisions of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 on the basis of possession. Any person having a better right or title can very well object to such mutation granted on the basis of possession and is entitled to challenge it before the competent revenue authority. In the event such a challenge is made, the competent revenue authority is obligated to decide the issue regarding mutation on the basis of the evidence submitted by the contesting parties. In the case in hand, it is not seen that the Mutation Order dated 21.06.2004 passed in favour of the petitioner no. 2 in Mutation Case no. 209 of 2004-2005 has been challenged by the respondent M/s Coal India Limited or any other person.
34. In the absence of any challenge to the Mutation Order dated 21.06.2004, it cannot be said that the petitioner no. 2 was not in possession of the subject- land as on 26.07.2013. Even a trespasser is not to be evicted forcibly. A person in illegal occupation of the land has to be evicted following the prescribed procedure of law.
35. In so far as the direction to register a case against the respondents, named as accused, in the First Information Report [FIR] lodged by the petitioner no. 2 is concerned, it is already found from the discussion made above that the FIR was registered as Margherita Police Station Case no. 181/2013 and the same resulted in a charge-sheet against a nos. of officials of M/s Coal India Limited. The charge-sheeted accused persons faced the trial and the Trial Court had acquitted them from the charges vide its Judgment dated 08.10.2018. The relief so sought for by the petitioner has, therefore, become obsolete.
36. Summing up, it has emerged from the discussion that the act of demolition of the coke manufacturing unit installed at the subject-plot, carried out on 26.07.2013, was without following due procedure and was in violation of the principle of natural justice as no prior opportunity was afforded to the petitioners prior to 26.07.2013. But the liability cannot be affixed specifically on any of the respondent authorities in the Tinsukia District Administration and M/s Page No. 22/22 Coal India Limited in the instant writ proceedings, as these respondents have taken stands which are at variance to each other, shifting the liability of demolition from them. No direction can be made for making payment of any amount as losses suffered by the petitioners, for the reasons recorded. It has also emerged that on 26.07.2013, no exercise for eviction of the petitioners from the subject-plot was carried out. The petitioners have themselves admitted that as on date, they are operating the coke manufacturing unit from the subject-plot.
37. Resultantly, the writ petition is disposed of with the observation that the petitioners can only be evicted from the subject-plot only after following due procedure and in compliance of the principles of natural justice, that is, by affording a prior and reasonable opportunity of being heard. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant