WP(C) 6648/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I A ANSARI The petitioner’s contentions, in the present writ petition, are that the petitio ner is a landless person and he came to occupy a plot of Government land at Jagu n, in the district of Tinsukia, which forms the subject-matter of this writ peti tion, that he constructed a shed over the said plot of land and started his busi ness of bicycle repairing there, that he has been in continuous possession of th e said plot of land for the last twenty years and that the petitioner has no oth er means of livelihood except his said business of bicycle repairing. The petit ioner further contends that he has requisite permit from the Gaon Panchayat conc erned to run the said business. The petitioner’s grievance is that he has been served with a notice, dated 23.11.2010, issued by the office of the Sub-Division al Officer (Civil), Margherita, which shows that a proceeding has been initiated against him as an encroacher upon the said plot of land, which has given rise t o Encroachment Case No. 2/2010, and that by the notice aforementioned the petiti oner has been directed to vacate the land within seven days, or else, the petiti oner would be evicted therefrom in accordance with law. By filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitutio n of India, the petitioner has impugned the said notice, dated 23.11.2010, and h as sought for appropriate directions to be issued to the respondents restraining them from evicting the petitioner from the said plot of land. The petitioner c hallenges the legality of the notice, dated 23.11.2010, aforementioned on the gr ound that the land provides him with source of livelihood. Heard Mr. D. K. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. G. Soren, le arned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents. It needs to be, now, noted, that the petitioner is, admittedly, an encroacher u pon the said Government land. The Government has, therefore, the power to evict the petitioner from the said land by taking recourse to the relevant provisions of law. The notice, dated 23.11.2010, aforementioned made it clear that either the petitioner vacates the land, or else, he would be evicted in accordance wit h law. The notice, so served upon the petitioner, does not suffer from any infi rmity, legal or factual, for, as an encroacher, the petitioner cannot seek such a direction from this Court, which would allow him perpetuate the illegality, wh ich he has committed by encroaching upon the land. The fact, that the petitione r has been given a permit by the Gaon Panchayat concerned to run his business ov er the plot of land, does not vest in the petitioner any such right, which entit les him to remain in possession of the land and/or claim his right to continue h is occupation over the said plot of land. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has not been able to make out any case warranti ng this Court’s exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition, therefore, fails and the same s hall accordingly stand dismissed. No order as to costs.