CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(1987) 12 GAU CK 0011

Md. Abdul Matin and Others vs The State of Assam and Another

Gauhati High Court · Decided on 7 December 1987 · Citation: (1988) 1 GLR 479

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.N. Saikia, C.J · S. Haque, J
CASE NUMBER
Civil Rule No. 1321 of 1987

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 386 words

K.N. Saikia, C.J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners Mr. A.M. Mazumdar. Heard also Mr. P. Prasad, the learned Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam.

2.

The 46 Petitioners claim to have been allotted lands under the Minimum Needs Programme. However they now apprehend eviction from the lands as a result of an order stated to have been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara vide his Memo No. 65/85/80 dated 3.11.87 addressed to the S.D.C. Goalpara to carry out demolition operation in the Baladmari Pithbari village where all the Petitioners are living raising permanent structures. It is stated by Mr. Mazumdar that the Petitioners made an enquiry in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara but the latter expressed his helplessness stating that there was a direction from the higher authority to that effect and he had no hand in it. The Petitioners wanted to obtain a copy of the order dated 3.11.87 but they were told that do such copy would be furnished to them as the same was confidential.

3.

Mr. Mazumdar submits that the Petitioners having been allotted lands under the Minimum Needs Programme the Government also has its obligation, but there appears to be a divergence between the two departments of the Government one trying to help them and the other trying to evict them.

4.

As the Petitioners have not annexed the copy of the order supposed to have been passed on 3.11.87 we find it difficult to pass any order without knowing the facts and the contents of that order. We, however, feel that the Petitioners should not be evicted except by observing the procedure prescribed by law. If the Petitioners were in fact given lands under the Minimum Needs Programme it is open for them to pursue their rights before the appropriate authority. If the Deputy Commissioner has in fact ordered their eviction they should be given an opportunity by issuing appropriate notices and also an opportunity of being heard.

5.

We accordingly order that the Petitioners shall not be evicted from the lands allotted to them under the Minimum Needs programme except by following the procedure prescribed by law. Till such notice and opportunity is given as prescribed by law, they shall not be evicted.

6.

In the result, with the above direction and observations this petition is disposed of.