WP(C) 2058/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA Heard Mr. S Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B C Choudhury, learned State counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 6 and Mr. I Choud hury, learned Standing counsel, PWD, for respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5. Apprehending that the petitioner may be evicted from his patta land with out following due process of law by the PWD authority, the instant writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to the authority not to evict the petiti oner from his patta land without following the proper procedure of law with a fu rther prayer to stop the proposed action of the respondents to demolish the boun dary wall of the Schedule -A land and to remove the Monolith of the retail outle t for taking over the private drain of the petitioner in the Schedule - B land. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the respondent No s. 3, 4 and 5. The relevant Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition is quoted hereunder: 5. That, the Public Works Department has undertaken the construction/ex pansion of the road including drains in larger public interest and have never il legally acquired any land of any patta holder without following due process of l aw. For the construction works involved in the instant case some portions of lan d have been voluntarily made available to the department by the public. The depa rtment has almost completed the work except in the portion of the land belonging to the petitioner. 6. That, in order to prevent the petitioner from facing any inconvenien ce in the hands of the department one additional cross culvert has been construc ted for drainage of water to keep the petitioner’s land untouched. As such the d epartment has not acquired any land from the petitioner and it is absolutely inc orrect that the department is forcefully trying to evict the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation from the department. From the statement made on oath in the above paragraphs it would reveal that the department has not acquired any land from the petitioner and the depart ment is not trying to evict the petitioner from his patta land owned and possess ed by him as alleged. Considering the specific statements made on oath by the PWD authority, t he writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents that in futu re, if the respondent authority requires some land belonging to the petitioner f or construction of culvert etc., they will not acquire the land possessed by the petitioner, without following the due procedure of law. With the above direction(s), this writ petition is disposed of. No costs .