WP(C) 2688/2011. Gauhati High Court
|Case Number:||WP(C) 2688/2011|
|Judgement Date:||May 24, 2020|
|Court:||Gauhati High Court|
Orders passed by the Assam Board of Revenue in appeal
I N THE GAUHATI HI GH COURT
(High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh)
WP( C) No.2688 of 2011
Tinsukia Bari Masjid and Madrassa
Committee , Tinsukia, Assam
Represented by its General Secretary
Haji Md. Zahid
- Versus –
The State of Assam and others
B E F O R E
HON’BLE MR. JUSTI CE A.M. BUJOR BARUA
For the petitioner: Mr. P.J. Saikia, Adv
For the respondents: Mr. D. Nath, State Counsel.
Date of Hearing : 24.05.2017.
Date of Judgment: 24.05.2017.
JUDGMENT & ORDER ( ORAL)
Heard Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Nath, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents.
The petitioner is the Tinsukia Bari Masjid and Madrassa Committee and they were aggrieved by rule 18(2) and 18(3) notice under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation dated 10.09.2007, issued under the signature of the SDO(Civil), Tinsukia, Sadar. The said notice was assailed by the writ petitioner before the Assam Board of Revenue, resulting in Case No.156 RA(TI N)/ 07. By the judgment and order dated 11.10.2010 in the said revenue appeal, the learned Revenue Board while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner, had also provided that at the time of eviction, the Deputy Commissioner will not
dismantle the construction of the building, but shall cause a vacation of the building by the tenants and others, who are occupying it.
The learned counsel for the petitioner without going into the merit and demerit of the judgment and order of the learned Board of Revenue, submits that this writ petition is preferred on a narrow issue to the extent as to whether the notice under Rule 18(2) and 18(3) was issued in a proper manner. The learned counsel brings it to the notice of the Court that the said notices begins with the sentence that it came to the knowledge from the report of the Circle Officer that the petitioner is illegally occupying the Government land. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said report of the Circle Officer is in fact a report of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia dated 13.08.2007. I t is stated that as the basis of the notice under Rule 18(2) and 18(3) is the said report of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, therefore, the procedure, which was adopted in arriving at the said report is also relevant.
Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner refers to paragraph-2 of the report dated 13.08.2007, which...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL