WP(C) 4685/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. BARUAH Heard Mr. A.S. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Talukdar, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam appearing for all the respondents in WP(C) No.4685/2010 and respondent Nos.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 in WP(C) N o.5582/2010. None appears for the other respondents in the said writ petition. The petitioner in WP(C) No.4685/2010 has challenged the notice of evicti on dated 22.07.2010 issued by the Circle Officer, Dhubri Revenue Circle in Evict ion Case No.1/2010 requiring the petitioner to vacate the Government land occupi ed by him without there being any order of allotment/settlement made in his favo ur. The said order has been challenged on the ground that the petitioner has bee n occupying the said land for a long period of time and though from time to time prayer for allotment/settlement has been made, nothing has been done by the rev enue authority till date. It is also the contention of the petitioner that in Da g No.865 apart from the petitioner some other persons are also occupying the Gov ernment land but the petitioner has been singled out by the Circle Officer witho ut however taking any action on the other unauthorized occupants. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.2 in WP(C) No. 4685/2010 it has been contended that the eviction proceeding has been initiated for eviction of the petitioner in respect of 11 lechas of land in Dag No.865 of Mouja Dhubri Town Khas Mahal under Dhubri Revenue Circle, as the petitioner has been occupying the said land unauthorisedly without there being any order of all otment/settlement made in his favour. It is also the contention of the responden t in the affidavit-in-opposition that the petitioner being a rich person, he is not eligible for settlement of any Government khas land. In WP(C) No.5582/2010 the petitioner has challenged the communication da ted 23.08.2010 issued by the Chairman, Dhubri Municipal Board, canceling the hol ding No.392/404 allotted to the petitioner in respect of the house constructed o ver the Government khas land in Dag No.865, in respect of which the eviction pro ceeding has been initiated, on the ground of allotment of holding number in resp ect of the house constructed over the Government khas land. The grounds of chall enge of the said order is that before passing such order no notice was ever issu ed to the petitioner and also without taking into consideration the interim orde r dated 20.08.2010 passed in WP(C) No.4685/2010 directing the parties in the sai d petition not to disturb the possession in respect of the land in question. The respondent No.3 in the affidavit-in-opposition has stated that the e viction proceeding has already been initiated for eviction of the petitioner fro m the Government land, which he is occupying and is covered by Dag No.865. The M unicipal Authority however has not filed any affidavit-in-opposition. Mr. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the writ petitions has submitted that he is occupying the said land since the ye ar 1947 and as filed applications for allotment/settlement of the said land meas uring 11 lechas, the authority before passing the order for eviction by register ing the eviction case ought to have disposed of the applications filed by the pe titioner for allotment/settlement. It has also been contended that though in Gov ernment Dag No.865 apart from the petitioner some other persons are also occupyi ng the Government land, the petitioner has been singled out by the Circle Office r for eviction. During the course of argument, Mr. Choudhury, learned Sr. counse l for the petitioner denies that the petitioner is not a landless person and is a rich person as contended by the respondent in the affidavit-in-opposition file d. Relating to the challenge made to the communication dated 23.08.2010 issued b y the Municipal Authority, which is the subject matter in WP(C) No.5582/2010, it has been submitted by Mr. Choudhury that such order was passed behind the back of the petitioner without issuing any notice and also ignoring the interim order dated 20.08.2010 passed in WP(C) No.4685/2010. Mr. Talukdar, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam, appearing for the offic ial respondents has submitted that the impugned order of eviction has been issue d by the Circle Officer, as the petitioner is admittedly occupying the Governmen t land without there being any order of allotment/settlement in his favour. It h as also been submitted that the petitioner is not a landless person and in fact is a very rich person and as such is not entitled to settlement of Government la nd. Relating to the challenge made to the communication by the Chairman of the M unicipal Authority, Mr. Talukdar has submitted that it is apparent from the said communication issued by the Chairman of the Municipal Board that the allotment was cancelled because of the construction of the houses over the Government khas land without there being any settlement. It appears that the Circle Officer has issued the eviction notice dated 22.07.2010 for eviction of the petitioner from the Government khas land measurin g 11 lechas comprised in Government Dag No.865. There is no dispute that the sai d land is Government khas land and according to the petitioner though he applied for settlement/allotment of the said land, no order however has been passed. Th e petitioner also claims that he is occupying the land since the year 1947 and t hough some other persons are also occupying the Government land in Dag No.865, n o steps however has been taken in respect of those persons but the petitioner ha s been singled out for eviction. It is also the contention of the petitioner tha t he is a landless person and entitled to settlement. Those facts cannot be ascertained in a writ proceeding in the absence of relevant materials and also the records. In WP(C) No.5582/2010, as noticed above, the contention of the petitione r is that the communication dated 23.08.2010 has been issued by the Chairman can celling the allotment without issuing any notice. The said position has not been disputed by the Municipal authority. The Chairman of the Municipal Board in fac t has not entered appearance. The holding number having been allotted in favour of the petitioner, he is at least entitled to a notice before cancellation of such allotment, for what ever may be the reason for such cancellation. Such opportunity has not been affo rded to the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petitions are disposed of giving the opportunity to the petitioner to file objection along with documents if any, to the notice issued by the Circle Officer dated 22.07.2010 by registeri ng the Eviction Case No.1/2010, allowing him to raise all the contention raised in the present writ petition. In case such objection is filed by the petitioner within a period of 1(one) month from today, the same shall be considered by the Circle Officer and necessary speaking order shall be passed by the authority wit hin a period of 1(one) month thereafter. The petitioner is also granted liberty to file objection along with docu ments, if any, to the communication dated 23.08.2010 issued by the Chairman, Dhu bri Municipal Board relating to the cancellation of allotment, who shall hear th e petitioner on such cancellation and pass a speaking order, since the allegatio n of the petitioner in WP(C) No.5582/2010, as noticed above, is relating to viol ation of the principle of natural justice. Such objection shall be filed within a period of 1(one) month from today. The Chairman shall pass necessary speaking order within a period of 1(one) month thereafter. For the aforesaid period of 2(two) months, the status quo as regards the possession of the petitioner over the land in question and also in respect of t he house in question, as on today, shall be maintained. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs.