WP(C) 4518/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitio ner. Also heard Mr. Mr. J. Handique, learned Government Advocate representing t he respondents. 2. The petitioner alleges that on 17.3.2009 the police personnel under Silc har P.S. forcibly demolished the structures standing on the allotted land of the petitioner and have also occupied the said land by threatening violence against the petitioner. 3. The land measuring 1 Katha, 4 Chatak covered by Dag No. 2678 (pt) under Mouja Silchar town in Barakpar Pargana was allotted for commercial use to the pe titioner on 21.1.2009 (Annexure-5). The petitioner is a scrap dealer and was car rying out his said business on the land allotted for last several years and in p ursuant to such allotment was in peaceful occupation of his allotted land. 4. It is contended by Mr. Goswami that at the time when formal possession o f the allotted land was given and its boundary was demarcated, the Superintenden t of Police, Cachar was himself present at the site and no objection was raised to demarcation of the land allotted to the petitioner. It is also pointed out by Mr. Goswami that the Revenue Record clearly revealed the land to be Government Khas in favour of Police Department . Accordingly it is submitted by the learne d counsel that if the police had any objection to the allotment, they should hav e raised such objection at the appropriate time and in any case they could not h ave forcibly taken over the legally allotted land of the petitioner. 5. The petitioner also contends that he had raised a R.C.C. structure over the land and as the police authorities while forcibly occupying the land had dem olished the said structures, the petitioner is entitled to be compensated for th e loss of his valuable property. 6. Mr. J. Handique, learned Government Advocate refers to the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Border), Cachar D.E.F., Shilchar and submits that the land in question have been earmarked for use of t he police department since last several decades and the police authorities were never consulted when allotment of the land was considered in favour of the petit ioner. The learned counsel further submits that objection was not raised by the police at the time of demarcation of the allotted land, under a mistake of fact . As regards the claim for compensation, Mr. Handique refers to the buildi ng permission (Annexure-8) applied by the petitioner on 2.3.2009 from the Silcha r Development Authority and it is submitted that when the petitioner has been ev icted from the said land on 17.3.2009, possibility of any R.C.C. structure stand ing on the said land is remote and there cannot be any claim for compensation on the basis of purported demolition of such R.C.C. structure. 7. I find from the case papers that the allotment of the land to the petiti oner was preceded by a legally recognized process and due recommendation have al so been made by the Land Advisory Committee recommending allotment of the Govern ment Khas land to the petitioner. At no such stage, prior to 17.3.2009 the polic e raised any objection against the allotment of the land and the occupation ther eof by the petitioner. Only on 17.3.2009 the police forcibly evicted the petitio ner and took over the possession of the land allotted to the petitioner. 8. Even in a situation where the police authorities have a legitimate claim over the land allotted to the petitioner, they cannot take the law into their h ands and forcibly occupy such land. Accordingly the impugned eviction of the pet itioner made by the police, is declared to be unauthorized in law. The petitione r be restored possession of his allotted land forthwith by the Deputy Commission er, Cachar (respondent No.4) and the police shall not obstruct in the restoratio n of possession. 9. As regards the claim for compensation for demolition, I am of the view t hat it would not be appropriate for a Writ Court to decide as to whether the pet itioner is entitled to receive any compensation. In any case the police have dis puted that any structural demolition was involved in the process of eviction. In such circumstances, instead of entertaining any claim for compensation, the pet itioner is permitted to take recourse to such remedy as is available in law, to agitate his claim for compensation. 10. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of witho ut any order of cost.