WP(C) 1579/2005 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA The petitioner an advocate, who admittedly was in occupation of Govt. la nd, is aggrieved by his eviction from the land and demolition of his property th erein. 2. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner had purch ased the possessory right of the land measuring 1 katha and 10 lechas under Dag No. 359 situated at Village Khanapara, Mauza Beltola, Sub- Registry Guwahati in the District of Kamrup. Such purchase was in the year 1976 (18.06.76). According to the petitioner he developed the land by plantation etc. and also paid the land revenue from 1979 - 1991 when the Govt. stopped receiving such revenue (Tou zibahi). 3. The wife of the petitioner who is a Govt. employee, availed official Gov t. quarter in the year 1990 and the family of the petitioner started living ther e. The house which was constructed by the petitioner on the Govt. land was rente d out and it remained under rent till 1997. The petitioner also paid municipal tax to the Guwahati Municipality Corporation (GMC) from January, 1997 to March, 2005. 4. In April, 2000 the petitioner made an application to the Deputy Commissi oner, Kamrup for settlement of the said Govt. land under his possession. While d escribing the children of the petitioner in paragraph-2 of the writ petition, he has stated that his eldest daughter is studying in Civil Aviation technology i n New Delhi. His application for settlement of land was processed by the Chief Revenue Assistant and other authorities. Be it stated here that in the applicati on, the petitioner described himself as landless and economically backward perso n. It appears that some query was made as to whether the land in question was in volved in the particular writ proceeding (CR (SH) No. 128/98). By Annexure-II or der dated 04.01.04, the Chief Revenue Assistant in the office of the Deputy Comm issioner, Revenue Settlement Branch requested the Circle Officer, Dispur Revenu e Circle to submit a fresh proposal. 5. According to the petitioner, some surrendered militants came to occupy another plot of Govt. land lying vacant adjacent to the petitioner’s land. Howev er later on they left the place and thereafter the Association called Minibus As sociation occupied and developed the said plot of land for the purpose of shifti ng their stand from Paltanbazar to Khanapara. It will be pertinent to mention he re that the said land alongwith the land of the petitioner is adjacent to the Na tional Highway No. 37. According to the petitioner, the said Association also ab andoned the land and the same was occupied by the Assam State Transport Corporat ion (ASTC) on 24.12.03 and started functioning from there. The constructions wer e made for the bus station and the said bus station is known as Khanapara ASTC B us Station. 6. When efforts were made to evict the petitioner and others by the ASTC a uthority, the petitioner and others filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 570/ 2004 and the same was disposed of by order dated 05.02.04 providing that if the petitioners were in possession of the land in question, they should not be evict ed from the same except in accordance with law. After such an order passed by th is Court, the petitioner once again approached the revenue authority for settlem ent of the land. However, he was evicted from the land on 25.02.05 which accordi ng to the petitioner was without any prior notice. The construction made by the petitioner was also demolished. After such eviction of the petitioner from the l and by the respondents, he lodged an FIR with the Basistha Police Station on 25 .02.05. According to the petitioner, the loss incurred by him for such eviction and demolition of his house stood at Rs. 10 lakhs and that he is entitled to c ompensation to the tune of Rs. 21,47,000/-. 7. It is in the aforesaid backdrop this writ petition has been filed with the prayer for declaring the eviction of the petitioner as illegal and to pay co mpensation to him. 8. The respondents in their counter affidavits have denied the contentions raised in the writ petition. In the affidavit filed by the Managing Director of the ASTC. It has been stated that the Dispur bus station has been shifted to Kha napara where the petitioner was in occupation of the Govt. land unauthorizedly. Such shifting of the bus station from Dispur to Khanapara was required to facili tate renovation/reconstruction of Dispur Capital Complex. On the prayer of the C orporation, the Govt. of Assam in the Revenue Department allotted it a plot of l and measuring 5 bighas, 1 katha covering Dag No. 359 at Village Khanapara under Beltola Mouza. The land is roadside land adjacent to the National Highway No. 37 . The Corporation was allotted with the land on payment of premium of Rs. 28,45, 824/-. Presently the bus station at Khanapara is being used by the Corporation a nd some buses are also operating under the banner of the Corporation as per the scheme of the Corporation. 9. In the affidavit it has further been stated that the Corporation does n ot have any other land except the said land at Khanapara which is suitable for r unning the bus station. Further statement made is that, the land allotted to the Corporation is a Govt. land and was originally reserved in the name of general administration department by the Govt. of Assam. It was found that the petitione r was encroaching upon a portion of the land (about 2 kathas). The Corporation a fter allotment of the land, has developed the same by earth filling and construc ting the station yard. However, in view of the interim order passed, that part o f the land under occupation of the petitioner could not be developed which has c aused inconvenience to the Corporation and to the general public. 10. It appears that a number of affidavits have been filed by the petitioner . Other respondents have also filed their affidavits. The gist of the stand of t he respondents is that since the petitioner was in occupation of the Govt. land, he has rightly been evicted from the same when public purpose demanded such evi ction. Referring to the land policy of 1989 of the Govt. of Assam, it is the sta nd of the petitioner that he is entitled to get settlement of the land, he being landless and economically backward. In the affidavit filed by the District Admi nistration, it is the stand that the prayer of the petitioner for settlement of the land could not be considered as the land was required for public purpose bei ng situated adjacent to the National Highway. It has been stated that the petiti oner has been evicted from the land as per the provision of Rule 18 (2) of the A ssam Land Revenue Regulation, 1886. Such eviction was on 25.02.05. In the affida vit the eviction Case No. 7/2004-2005 has been referred to and it has been state d that the eviction order dated 16.02.05 was passed under Rule 18(2) of the afor esaid Regulation. It is the stand in the affidavit that the land measuring 5 bi ghas, 1 lecha which includes the land unauthorizedly occupied by the petitioner was handed over to the ASTC upon clearing the encroachment. 11. The petitioner who has argued his case in person has referred to the l arge number of affidavits he has filed so as to contend that his eviction from t he land was illegal and unauthorized. According to him he was entitled to notice before such eviction. He has also referred to the following decisions in suppor t of his case. a) AIR 1996 SC 114 (U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & ano. Vs. Friends Co-op . Housing Society Ltd. b) AIR 1997 SC 152 (Ahmedabad Municipality Corporation vs. Nawab Khan Gulab khan & ors.) c) 1984 (1) GLR 474 (Shew Chand Chouhan & ors. Vs. The Revenue Officer Karb i Anglong District Council) d) AIR 1982 SC 1081 (Govt. of A.P. vs. Thummala Krishna Rao & ano.) e) (1969) 3 SCC 415 (M/s. Wire-netting Stores vs. Delhi Development Authori ty) f) AIR 1986 SC 180 (Olga Tellis & ors. Vs. Bombay Municipality Corporation & ors.) g) 1989 2 GLT 126 (Udaldas Panika and ano. Vs. Karbi Anglong District Counc il) h) 2004 (Sppl.) GLT 71 (Imlitemjen Jamir & ors. Vs. Nagaland & ors.) i) 1983 2 GLR 258 (Kamala Kanta Deka vs. State of Assam & ors.) 12. Ms. R. Chokraborty, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, on the other hand submitted that since the land in question is admittedly a Govt. land, the petiti oner cannot claim it as a matter of right to get settlement of the same and/or t o continue to occupy the land unauthorisedly. Ms. U. Baruah, learned Standing co unsel, ASTC referring to the provision of Rule 18 (2) of the aforesaid Regulatio n submitted that the petitioner having been evicted from the land for public pur pose, the individual right of the petitioner cannot prevail over the public purp ose. Mr. D. Saikia, learned Standing counsel, GMC and Ms. M. Hazarika, learned S r. counsel assisted by Ms. M. Baruah, learned Standing counsel, GMDA submitted that the said authorities have nothing to do with the matter. Mr. P.K. Roychoudh ury, learned counsel for the respondents No. 10 and 11, submitted that the indiv idual right of the petitioner even if any, cannot prevail over the public purpos e. Referring to the sand of the said respondents in Misc. Case Nos. 836/08 and 8 37/08 and the decision of this Court reported in 2006 (3) GLR 99, he submitted t hat the petitioner having occupied the Govt. land unauthorisedly and upon his ev iction from the same, cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction and that too with disp uted questions of fact. According to him the petitioner has taken a chance for f avourable consideration after occupying the Govt. land forcibly and remaining in possession of the same unauthorisedly. 13. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the pa rties and the materials on record. There is no dispute that the petitioner was i n occupation of the Govt. land which falls within the area of the land allotted to the ASTC by the Govt. for a public purpose. The Dispur ASTC bus station was r equired to be shifted for public purpose and accordingly the Govt. in considerat ion of the practical reality and as a public policy decided to allot the particu lar plot of land to the ASTC and the said authority has now occupied the land. T he land has been developed by the ASTC and the bus terminus has been constructed and as per the own admission of the petitioner, the buses under ASTC are runnin g from the said bus station. 14. It is not only the petitioner who has been evicted from the land but oth er such encroachers of the Govt. land have also been evicted. It will pertinent to mention here that the earlier writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 570/04 was fil ed by as many as 25 number of writ petitioners out of which the present petition er was the petitioner No. 1. The writ petition was filed when a drive was made to evict the unauthorized occupants of the Govt. land and the writ petition was disposed of by order dated 05.02.04 in terms of which the competent authority wa s authorized to evict the encroachers in accordance with law. Merely because the prayer of the petitioner for settlement of the land was processed at some level including at the level of the Chief Revenue Assistant whose authority in such m atter is not known, the petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right that the la nd must be settled with him. If the petitioner occupied the Govt. land and made certain constructions on it even before the land was settled with him, same was at his own risk and cost. No one has any right to make construction over the Go vt. land and then to say, upon eviction and demolition of such construction that such eviction and demolition were illegal and consequently he is entitled to ge t compensation. 15. After the petitioner was evicted from the land and his illegal construct ion was demolished, he lodged an FIR with the Basistha Police Station about whic h mention has been made above. The copy of the FIR dated 25.02.05 has been annex ed as Annexure-19 which discloses as many as 9 business establishments. Thus, th e petitioner claiming himself to be a landless and economically backward person while staying at the Govt. allotted quarter to his wife made use of the Govt. l and for rent purpose and upon demolition of such unauthorized construction, has filed the writ petition. 16. A little discussion about the cases cited by the petitioner is made. In Thummala Krishna Rao (supra), the Apex Court dealing with the power of the Govt. to evict summarily the person in unauthorized occupation of Govt. land under th e provision of Section 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, held that such cours e of action cannot be resorted to if there is bonafide dispute regarding the tit le of the Govt. to the said property. 17. In Olga Tellis (supra) while holding that the right to life includes rig ht to livelihood, it was observed that deprivation of such right cannot be accep ted except just and fair procedure established by law. Similarly, in Nawab Khan Gulabkhan (supra), the requirement of following the principle of natural justice as per the provision of Bombay Municipal Corporation Act was emphasized. In Fri ends Co-op. Housing Society Ltd (supra), it was observed right to shelter spring s from the right to resident assured in Article 19 and right to life in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 18. In Udaldas Panika (supra), it was held that notice for eviction without proper description of the land deprived the petitioner all reasonable opportunit y of being heard. Imlitemjen Jamir (supra) was a case in which the allotment or der was cancelled without affording the opportunity of hearing to the allottee. In this context, it was held that such cancellation was violative of the princip le of natural justice. In Kamala Kanta Deka (supra), dealing with the scope and ambit of Rule 18 (2) of the aforesaid Regulation, it was held that the recourse to summary remedy of eviction can be resorted to under Rule 18 (2) only in respe ct of the land specified in Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 18. In that particular case, up on failure of the respondents to show that the land from which the petitioner ha d been evicted was one of such land, the eviction procedure was held to be void ab initio. In Shew Chand Chouhan (supra) when it was found that the eviction of the petitione was illegal, a direction was issued to adequately compensate the p etitioner. In M/s. Wire-netting Stores (supra) when it was found that the proced ure was not followed towards making eviction, it was held that such eviction was not only contrary to law but also to the principles of natural justice. 19. None of the aforesaid cases are applicable to the case in hand. It is no t the case of the petitioner that the land in question does not come into the pu rview of Rule 18 (2) of the aforesaid Regulation. As noticed above, the eviction case No. 7/2004-2005 under Rule 18 (2) was initiated against the petitioner and it is on the basis of the order passed therein, he was evicted from the Govt. l and. While emphasizing the right to life and livelihood, it cannot be said that anybody can occupy any Govt. land and continue to occupy the same irrespective of the public purpose for which the land is required. In the instant case, the p etitioner unauthoirsedly occupied the Govt. land on the basis of possessory righ t purchased by him. The copy of the sale deed has been annexed to the writ petit ion. It was a deed between the petitioner and the one who had earlier occupied t he land. Such deed is of no consequence when the real owner of the land, i.e. th e Govt., is not involved in the said deed. As to for what purpose the land has b een utilized by the petitioner after projecting himself as the landless and econ omically backward person has been noticed above. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 20. The plea of the petitioner that before evicting him he was not put to an y kind of notice, is not at all tenable. Law is well settled that Rule 18(2) of the Regulation does not provide for issuance of any notice before eviction, unl ike Sub-Rule 3 of the said Regulation. When the petitioner was found to be in oc cupation of the Govt. land procedure under Rule 18 (2) was initiated and he was evicted as per the procedure laid down therein. In the earlier round of litigati on initiated by the petitioner and others, the only order passed by this Court w as not to evict the petitioner except in accordance in law. The procedure in thi s regard as laid down in Rule 18(2) having been followed, the petitioner cannot make any grievance against the same. 21. In Kundargaon Anti Eviction Action Committee vs. Sate of Assam reported in 2006 (3) GLR 99, it has been held that Rule 18 (2) empowers the authority to evict any person in possession of the land previously reserved for public purpo se when no bonafide claim/ right is involved. It has further been held that Rul e 18(2) does not provide any issuance of notice before eviction. Even in the cas e of Kamala Kanta Deka (supra) referred to by the petitioner, the Division Bench of this Court declared that recourse to summary remedy of eviction can be resor ted to under Rule 18 (2) in respect of land specified in Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 18 . The land in question being under specification in Rule 18(2), the authorities rightly took recourse to the said Rule towards eviction of the petitioner from t he land. 22. As noticed above, the land in question is a roadside land adjacent to Na tional Highway. The petitioner after purchasing the possessory right made unauth orized construction over there and rented out such construction to others. The l and being a Govt. land, the Govt. is within its competence and jurisdiction to s ettle the same with the ASTC for a public purpose. Such public purpose will natu rally outweigh any other right. If the petitioner had made some construction ove r the Govt. land for the rent purpose, same was at his own risk and cost. Such u nauthorized construction cannot vest him with any kind of right so as to contend that his eviction from the land and demolition of the construction were illegal . 23. The petitioner by filing the writ petition followed by number of affidav its has also raised many disputed questions of fact in support of his case of al leged illegal eviction from the Govt. land. Needless to say that such disputed question of fact cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction. The fact that the lan d is a Govt. land has not be disputed by the petitioner. Merely because he has s ought for settlement of the land with him on the basic foundation of unauthorize d occupation of the land and making certain construction over it, the petitioner cannot project his case to be one governed by the principles enunciated in the decisions referred to by him. Govt. is the best judge as to how its land shall b e utilized. The land was found suitable for bus terminus of the ASTC and accordi ngly, on payment of premium the land was allotted to the ASTC. The ASTC has occu pied the land and already constructed the bus station. Such public purpose must give way to any narrow individual interest without there being any fundamental o r legal right. 24. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petit ion and accordingly it is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The interim order passed on 02.03.05 stands vacated.