Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010065082025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/53/2024 FAKAR UDDIN MAZUMDER S/O LATE ABDUL MIA MAZUMDER R/O VILL- NARAINPUR PART-II P.O.-CHANDPUR (WEST) P.S. AND DIST-HAILAKANDI 2: MONWARA BEGUM MAZUMDER W/O FAKAR UDDIN MAZUMDER R/O VILL- NARAINPUR PART-II P.O.-CHANDPUR (WEST) P.S. AND DIST-HAILAKANDI VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAILAKANDI 2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAILAKANDI PIN-788151 DIST-HAILAKANDI 3:THE ASSTT. SETTLEMENT OFFICER HAILAKANDI REVENUE CIRCLE PIN-788151 4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER HAILAKANDI REVENUE CIRCLE PIN-788151 DIST-HAILAKANDI ------------ Page No.# 2/8 Advocate for : MR. M H LASKAR Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 10.04.2025 Heard Mr. M.H. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. T. R. Gogoi, learned Junior Govt. Advocate, Assam and Ms. D.D. Barman, learned Additional Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam, for the State respondents. 2. In this petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner has put to challenge the order, dated 16.03.2024, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hailakandi, (First Appellate Court) in Misc. Appeal No.06/2023. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order, dated 16.03.2024, the learned First Appellate Court had set aside the order impugned before it, on the ground that the same become infructuous. 3. The background facts leading to filing of this petition are briefly stated as under:- “The petitioners herein had filed one writ petition being WP(C) No.1052/2018, before this Court, for restraining the respondent authorities from evicting the petitioners from the land in their lawful possession without following due process of law. The pleaded case of the petitioners before this Court, in the said writ petition, was that they are in possession of a piece of land, measuring 2 bighas, covered by Dag Nos.349 & 350 and Patta Page No.# 3/8 Nos. 82 & 83, located in village Narainpur, Part-II and that they are the owners of the said piece of land by way of inheritance and they have been residing there for more than 100 years and they have built their residential houses over the plot of land and also have planted trees and on 19.02.2018, they came to know from a letter written to the respondent No.4, whereby the respondent No.4 of the said petition was requested to provide adequate force on 24.02.2018, as the respondent No.3 would be conducting an eviction in their village, as per direction given by the respondent No.2 on 22.08.2007. The said writ petition was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 24.02.2022, by holding that the petitioners have failed to show any kind of document that they have bona-fide claim over the part of the land, measuring 15 katha, 12 chatak of land falling under Dag No.349 and Patta No.2nd R.S. in village - Narainpur, Part-II and the revenue record goes to show that the plot of land covered by Dag No.349 and Patta No.2nd R.S. has been recorded as Government khas land and the same is reserved for road. However, it is observed that in the event of respondent authorities undertaking any process of eviction to clear the encroachment of the plot of land measuring 15 katha 12 chatak, covered by Dag No.349, Patta No.2nd R.S. located at village- Narainpur, which is reserved for road, the respondent authorities, before carrying out such process, shall ascertain and demarcate Page No.# 4/8 the boundaries of the said plot of land. Thereafter, the petitioners have instituted one title suit before the Court of learned Civil Judge, Hailakandi, being Title Suit No.85/2022 for declaration of right, title and interest over the aforesaid plot of land. They had also filed one application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC, for granting ad-interim temporary injunction, against the defendant authorities, restraining them from being evicted till completion of ascertainment and demarcation of the khas Dag No.349 from its 'A' to 'Z' point. Upon the said petition the learned Trial Court had registered a Misc.(J) Case, No.98/2022. Thereafter, hearing both the parties, the learned Trial Court was pleased to grant temporary injunction, vide order dated 10.01.2023, restraining operation of the process of eviction at village - Narainpur Part-II only, in residential premises of the petitioners/plaintiffs, till completion of ascertainment and demarcation of the suit khas Dag No.349 from its 'A' to 'Z' point, as indicated in the revenue map,in view of the directions, so passed by this Court in the judgment and order dated 24.02.2022, in WP(C) No.1052/2018 till disposal of the Title Suit No.85/2022. The said order was challenged by the respondent authorities before the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Hailakandi (First Appellate Court), by filing one Misc. Appeal No.06/2023, wherein the learned First Appellate Court, vide impugned judgment and order dated 16.03.2024, was pleased to set aside the order of the learned Trial Court, dated 10.01.2023, on its Page No.# 5/8 becoming infructuous, as in the meantime the State respondents had complied with the direction given by this Court in WP(C) No.1052/2018 and demarcated the suit land, covered by Dag No.349 from 'A' to 'Z' point. Being aggrieved, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition. 4. Mr. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that having found a prima facie case, and the balance of convenience, and also the irreparable loss, the three golden principles in favour of the petitioners herein, the learned trial court had granted temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners, till disposal of the suit. But, the learned First Appellate Court, without considering all those factors, had mechanically passed the impugned judgment and order, on the ground that demarcation is carried out as per direction of this Court in the WP(C) No.1052/2018 and as such, the injunction order passed by the learned Trial Court dated 10.01.2023, became infructuous. Mr. Laskar further submits that there is a requirement of continuation of the said injunction order till disposal of the suit, else the title suit, so filed by the petitioners would become infructuous. Therefore, Mr. Laskar has contended to allow this petition. 5. On the other hand, the categorical contention of Mr. Gogoi and Ms. Barman, learned Government Advocates, Assam, is that the land covering Dag No.349 is a Government land and the same was being illegally occupied by the petitioners herein. It is their further submission that the land is required for public purpose, i.e. for construction of road and as such, the encroachers are required to be evicted from the suit land and the direction given by this Court in WP(C) No.1052/2018, had already been carried out. It is also their submission that the title suit was instituted by the petitioners herein on the ground that the Page No.# 6/8 eviction is contemplated to be carried out without demarcation and only on such count, the learned Trial Court had granted injunction. But, on appeal, the learned First Appellate Court has set aside the same on the ground of the injunction order being infructuous, as demarcation the land, covering Dag No.349, was carried out. And as such, there is no merit in this petition and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the same. 6. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the impugned order, dated 10.01.2023, passed by the learned Trial Court and also the order dated 16.03.2024, passed by the learned First Appellate Court and also the judgment and order dated 24.02.2022, passed by this Court in WP(C) No.1052/2018. 7. It appears that while dismissing the WP(C) No.1052/2018, this Court was pleased to direct the respondent authorities to carry out demarcation before proceeding to evict the encroachers from the suit premises, covering Dag No.349. Further, it appears that the Title Suit No.85/2022, was instituted by the petitioners, on the ground that the respondents herein started the process of eviction without demarcation of the suit premises as directed by this Court in WP(C) No.1052/2018. And on that premises the learned Trial Court was pleased to grant injunction from operating the process of eviction till disposal of the suit, as the process for eviction was started without ascertainment and demarcation of the suit khas Dag No.349. 8. But, it is the categorical stand of the respondent authorities that they have carried out the demarcation of the suit land covering Dag No.349 and as such, this matter become infructuous, as the direction given by this Court in Page No.# 7/8 WP(C) No.1052/2018 had been carried out and the learned First Appellate Court had rightly set aside the impugned order of granting injunction as the same become infructuous, as the reason behind granting injunction has already been satisfied with after compliance of the order of this Court in WP(C) No.1052/2018. It also appears that during the pendency of the appeal the respondent authorities had carried out the demarcation process and had produced the related documents before the learned First Appellate Court, vide No.ASO.24/2017/41, dated Hailakandi the 9th Feb, 2024 issued by the Circle Officer, Hailakandi Revenue Circle. 9. Indisputably, the respondent authority is the true owner of the land. Being the possession of the petitioners is unlawful, they cannot seek any injunction against the rightful owner for evicting them. It is settled law that no injunction could be granted against the true owner at the instance of persons in unlawful possession. There is, thus neither balance of convenience nor irreparable injury would be caused to the petitioners. Besides, the land in question is required for public purpose i.e. for construction of road. It is now well settled that public interest is one of the material and relevant considerations in either exercising or refusing to grant ad interim injunction. (Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke v. Pune Municipal Corpn., reported in (1995) 3 SCC 33. 10. Under the given facts and circumstances and also in the light of submissions, so advanced by learned Advocates of both the parties, this Court is of the view that impugned order dated 16.03.2024 passed by the learned First Appellate Court suffers from no infirmity or illegality requiring any interference of this Court. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. Page No.# 8/8 JUDGE Comparing Assistant