WP(C) 369/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. CHAUDHURY Heard Mr. A. Roshid, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Bhagabati, le arned Government Advocate. 2. Apprehending eviction from a plot of land measuring about 16 bigha under Tauji No. 95 of Balijana Circle, Dag No. 189/42 in Village Baladmari Part-V in the District Goalpara, the petitioner has approached this Court. The case of th e writ petitioner is that he has been in possession of the land in question for over a period of 46 years. He filed a suit being Title Suit No. 3/2006 in the Co urt of learned Munsiff No. 1 at Goalpara claiming declaration of right, title an d interest and possession over the above mentioned land and also for perpetual i njunction restraining the respondents, their employees and agents from evicting the petitioner from the above mentioned suit land. The suit of the petitioner wa s dismissed on 13.09.2006. 3. It is to be mentioned here that the defendants who were government autho rities did not file any written statement in the suit and the suit proceeded ex- parte against them. Be that as it may, as against the said ex-parte judgment on dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff who is the petitioner herein preferred Titl e Appeal No. 1/2007 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Goalpara. The learned C ivil Judge allowed the appeal on 24.04.2007 holding that the petitioner has righ t to possess the same land in view of his continuous possession for over 46 year s without any hindrance from any quarter. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to such adjudication by a competent Civil Court, he has been in possess ion of the land legally and validly but in recent years the Government official under the Department of Forest visited the area and threatened the petitioner wi th eviction saying that the land is a forest land. Apprehending issuance of noti ce and forcible eviction from the suit land, petitioner approached this Court an d filed the present writ petition. This writ petition was admitted on 28.03.2008 and interim order was passed directing the parties to maintain status-quo. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it appears that no eviction notice was served on the writ p etitioner. Apprehending issuance of notice and a forcible eviction, the petition er approached this Court. Be that as it may, the petitioner is armed with a decr ee of the Civil Court in respect of the land in question. In that view of the ma tter, the petitioner, prima facie, cannot be an unauthorized occupant of the lan d. It is true that the judgment of the Civil Court was passed only on the pleadi ngs and evidence of the plaintiff side and there was no written statement from t he side of the Government. Yet the Government not having preferred any appeal ag ainst the appellate judgment referred to above, the said judgment of the learned Civil Judge continues to remain in force. Consequently, the petitioner’s status as an authorized occupant of land still continues. 5. It is a fact that the writ petition has been filed out of mere apprehens ion without there being issuance of any notice. Be that as it may, on considerat ion of totality of the facts and circumstances, I feel inclined to dispose of th is writ petition with a direction to the respondents to strictly follow the prov ision governing eviction of occupants from the government land, if there is any attempt for evection of the present petitioner from the land in question. The ru le of due process should be followed both in letter and spirit in the eviction d rive, if so advised by the Government. 6. No order as to costs.