Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010115632025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/75/2025 UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, N.F. RAILWAY, MALIGAON, GUWAHATI - 11 2: DIVISIONAL ENGINEER MALIGAON N.F. RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI - 11. 3: ESTATE OFFICER N.F. RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI - 11 VERSUS NABA KUMAR DAS @ NABA KUMAR S/O- NAGEN DAS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PADUMBORI, P.O. - GOTANAGAR, GUWAHATI, PIN - 781033, DIST. - KAMRUP(M), ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. G PEGU, Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 16-07-2025 Heard Mr. G. Pegu, learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears for Page No.# 2/7 the respondent on call, though notice deemed to have been served upon them, as per record. 2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have put to challenge the correctness or otherwise of the judgment and order dated 26.09.2023, passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati (appellate authority hereinafter), in Misc. Appeal No. 76/2021. 3. It is to be noted here that vide judgment and order dated 26.09.2023, the learned appellate authority had allowed the appeal by setting aside the eviction order, dated 25.08.2021, passed by the Estate Officer, N.F. Railway, Maligaon, in Misc. Eviction Case No. EO/MLG/02/2021, for eviction of the appellant (respondent herein) without taking into consideration the factual aspect of the matter. 4. Mr. Pegu, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Railway has been allowed an area, by the Government of Assam, long back in public interest, including the land at East Gotanagar, covered by Dag No. 588 of Village Gotanagar, under Mouza Ramcharani, now Mouza Jhalukbari, and in this respect, a cadastral map, dated 11.01.1967, was issued by the then Land Acquisition Officer, B.B.B & RLY ACO. Branch, Guwahati by showing Railway land, being Annexure – 1, and that the said Dag, No. 588 is situated at East Gotanagar, which is now re-numbered as Dag Nos. (New) – 213/214/215/216/217/218/219/220/221/222/223, is a Railway land and in the Dag Chita Register, the same has been mutated in the name of the Railway by the Government of Assam, Revenue Department vide Annexure – 2. 4.1. Mr. Pegu further submits that the Railway has created plots, over Dag No. Page No.# 3/7 588(Old) by giving new plot number and that respondent had encroached the Railway land and the Estate Officer, N.F. Railway, Maligaon served him an eviction notice, under Section 4(i) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (1971 Act hereinafter) on 09.07.2021, under Sr. DEN/MLG's plan No. T/24/2014, showing the unauthorized encroachment of the Railway land and directed to show cause on or before 04.08.2021, by appearing before the Estate Officer in person or through duly authorized representative. Thereafter, on date fixed the respondent could not produce any documents to prove his title over the land, but he had produced some Electricity bills, GMC Tax payment receipts, etc. to show his length of occupation of the said plot of land and those documents do not prove his title over the land in question and as the length of occupation of Railway land unauthorizedly, does not confer any right to him to occupy the railway land, an eviction order dated 25.08.2021, was issued by the Estate Officer, N.F. Railway for vacation of the aforesaid railway land by the respondent, vide Annexure – 5. Thereafter, the respondent herein had challenged the aforementioned eviction order by filing an appeal, under Section 9 of the 1971 Act, before the court of learned District Judge, Kamrup (M) and the same was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 76/2021, and the same was listed with other analogous matters, including Misc. Appeal No. 28/2015, wherein the present petitioners have filed the written objection and also relied upon the said written objection at the time of hearing of Misc. Appeal No. 76/2021. 4.2. Further submission of Mr. Pegu is that in the earlier eviction notice against the respondent, the boundary of the land in question was not mentioned in the Eviction Case No. EO/MLG/4396/2014 and on that ground, the eviction order was earlier set aside by the learned Additional District Judge, FTC No. 4, Page No.# 4/7 Kamrup (M) at Guwahati. Thereafter, the Railway had issued fresh eviction notice on 09.07.2021 and after hearing both the parties, the eviction order dated 25.08.2021, was passed vide Annexure – 7. Thereafter, the respondent herein had challenged the aforementioned eviction order by filing Misc. Appeal No. 76/2021 and thereafter, hearing both the parties, the learned appellate court had set aside the eviction order. 4.3. Mr. Pegu also submits that being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this court by filing the present petition mainly on following two grounds:- (i) That, the learned appellate authority had failed to appreciate the eviction notice issued to the respondent, under Section 4 of the 1971 Act, which contains all the requirements as specified under Sub-Section 2 of Section 4 of the 1971 Act and also in the said notice it was mentioned as to how the Estate Officer formed his opinion that the land in question is a public premises, belonging to the Railway and before issuance of notice under Section 4 of the 1971 Act, no mandates of Section 2(e) is required since Section 2(e) is a definition of what constitute public premises and it is not a mandate or requirement and as such, the impugned judgment and order is illegal, arbitrary. (ii) That, the learned appellate authority has failed to consider and appreciate that the Estate Officer has heard the respondent in person and asked him to produce documents in respect of his title over the land, which in fact is a Railway land and which he has been illegally and unauthorizedly occupying and as he has not been able to produce any relevant documents in this regard, the eviction order has been passed and therefore, there is no question of violation of Page No.# 5/7 the principle of natural justice and equity as alleged. 4.4. It is the further submission of Mr. Pegu that pursuant to order of this court dated 04.06.2025, the petitioner has brought the judgment in Misc. Appeal No.28/2015 on record by filing additional affidavit and that this court while dealing with CRP No. 15/2025, 16/2025 and 17/2025, in connection with similar subject matter, and similar plot of land, under same dag and patta number, had allowed the said petitions by setting aside the impugned judgment and order passed in Misc. Appeal No. 82/2021, 80/2021 and 83/2021 and remand the aforesaid matter back to the learned appellate authority, to decide the matter afresh, as to whether the land in question is a Railway land or a Government Khas land and if it is a Railway land, whether the appellant has the right to occupy the same on the basis of any legal document. Therefore, Mr. Pegu submits that this matter may also be remanded to the learned appellate authority to decide the aforesaid issues, by setting aside the impugned judgment and order so passed by it. 5. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the judgment and order dated 26.09.2023, passed by the learned appellate authority, in Misc. Appeal No. 76/2021 and also perused the judgment dated 05.06.2018, passed in Misc. Appeal No. 28/2015. 6. It appears that vide judgment, dated 05.06.2018, in Misc. Appeal No. 28/2015, the learned Additional District Judge No. 4, FTC, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati had set aside the order dated 10.02.2015, passed by the Estate Officer, N.F. Railway, Maligaon, in Eviction Case No. EO/MLG/4396/2014, under Section 5(1) of the 1971 Act. It also appears that the learned appellate authority in the aforesaid judgment had set aside the eviction order on the ground that Page No.# 6/7 minimum particulars, necessary to identify the plot of land in question has not been given, except the measurement of the plot of land and also on the ground that the conclusion so arrived at by the Estate Officer is in perfunctory manner, without considering the representation/communication given by the present respondent and thereafter, set aside the same. Thereafter, admittedly, fresh notice was issued to the respondent herein in Eviction Case No. EO/MLG/02/2021. 7. It is to be noted here that in the impugned judgment, the learned appellate authority had observed that the earlier decision of the learned appellate authority, in Misc. Appeal Case No. 28/2015, is final under Section 10 of the 1971 Act and as such, fresh eviction petition cannot be filed before the Estate Officer, N.F. Railway. 8. I have carefully perused the Section 10 of the 1971 Act, which read as under:- “10. Finality of orders. – Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, every order made by an estate officer or appellate officer under this Act shall be final and shall not be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceeding and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act.” 9. A careful perusal of the Section 10 of the 1971 Act indicates that what it prohibits is the order passed by the Estate Officer or the Appellate Officer under Act not the appellate court and the meaning of the aforementioned Section cannot be extended to an appeal preferred before the appellate court against the order of the Estate Officer or the Appellate Officer under the Act. It is to be Page No.# 7/7 noted here that appellate court and appellate officer are two different authorities. 10. Further, it appears from the impugned judgment and order that the learned appellate authority while deciding the appeal failed to consider two vital aspects as to whether the land was a Railway land and whether the respondent herein had produced any document which permits him to occupy the Railway land and it appears that answer to these two issues will clinch the matter. 11. Under such circumstances, this court is constrained to accept the submission, so advanced by Mr. Pegu, learned counsel for the petitioners. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 26.09.2023, stands set aside and quashed and the matter stands remanded to the learned appellate authority, to decide the issue afresh, as indicated in para No.10, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the respondent herein. 12. The aforementioned exercise shall be carried out as soon as practicable, preferably, within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. JUDGE Comparing Assistant