WA 305/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.MADAN B.LOKUR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE U.B. SAHA WA 305/2010 PRESENT HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.MADAN B.LOKUR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE U.B. SAHA 13.9.2010 (Madan B. Lokur,CJ) The appellants are aggrieved by an order dated 30th August, 2010 declining inter im relief to them. The appellants had filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 20th July, 2 010 passed by the Board of Revenue, Shillong in Revenue Appeal No.MBR/RA.4 of 20 10. The case of the appellants before the Board of Revenue was that they were patta dars and therefore they cannot be evicted from the land, which was in their poss ession since 1970 onwards. The case of the respondents was that the land had been acquired through a proces s which was initiated in 1975 and which culminated in the year 1978. The land wa s therefore Government land and the owners of the land had been paid the necessa ry compensation. The further case of the respondents was that the appellants are nothing but encr oachers and therefore they are not entitled to continue to remain on the land in question. The case of the respondents was accepted by the Board of Revenue. Feeling aggrie ved, the appellants filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Board of Revenue. By an order dated 30th August, 2010 learned Single Judge issued notice in the wr it petition returnable within four weeks i.e., on or about 29.9.2010. However, a s regards interim relief, the learned Single Judge was of the view, on a perusal of the order passed by the Board of Revenue and other materials on record that no prima facie case has been made out by the appellants for the grant of an inte rim order. In our opinion, a notice having been issued in the writ petition, there is clear ly some prima facie case made out by the appellants for consideration of the iss ues on merits. In the circumstances, if the order of eviction is effected, the w rit petition would virtually become infructuous so far as the appellants are con cerned. Consequently, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge having issued not ice, ought to have granted interim protection to the appellants against their ev iction, otherwise the impugned order would attain finality insofar as the appell ants are concerned. Consequently, we allow this appeal and grant interim stay to the appellants agai nst their eviction from the land in dispute until the returnable date before the learned Single Judge. We make it clear that the respondents should file their affidavit in opposition well before the returnable date so that a rejoinder could also be filed by the a ppellants and the matter taken up if possible on the returnable date or soon the reafter. If the respondents do not file their affidavit in opposition well befor e the returnable date, the learned Single Judge may continue the interim relief till the admission or dismissal of the writ petition filed by the appellants, or decline interim relief by a reasoned order. The writ appeal is disposed of in view of the above. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Choudhury/-