Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010240752022 2026:GAU-AS:6796 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7566/2022 LAL BHADUR CHOUHAN S/O SHRI SEW KARAN CHOUHAN, R/O DIPHU TOWN, MOUZA- JAMUNAPAR, P.O. AND P.S.-DIPHU, DIST- KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY REPRESENTED BY ESTATE OFFICER N.F. RAILWAY LUMDING DIST- NAGAON ASSAM 3:THE GENERAL MANAGER N.F. RAILWAY MALIGAON P.O. AND P.S.-MALIGAON DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM 4:THE ESTATE OFFICER NF RAILWAY LUMDING P.O.-LUMDING DIST- KARBI ANGLONG 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KARBI ANGLONG Page No.# 2/6 P.O.-DIPHU DIST- KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM 6:THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF RAILWAY DEPARTMENT NEW DELH Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R SIKDAR, M M ZAMAN,MD A ALI,D. HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE, MR. R K DEB CHOUDHURY, DSGI,GA, ASSAM,DY.S.G.I. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 18.05.2026 Heard Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned CGC for the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6; and Mr. H. Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondent No. 5. 2. The instant petition has been filed assailing the eviction notice No. W/212/LM/4/W-4, dated 16.11.2022, issued by the Estate Officer, N.F. Railway, Lumding. 3. The petitioner’s case is that the Railway authorities of Lumding, on earlier three occasions, issued eviction notices to the petitioner. However, in those eviction notices, it is seen that the Railway authorities had mentioned different plots of land i.e. in eviction notice dated 03.07.1998, it was mentioned as plot No. 15, whereas in eviction notice dated 15.02.2012, the plot was mentioned as plot No. 140 against the same person. In view of the aforesaid discrepancies in those notices, the petitioner challenged the same by filing WP(C) No. Page No.# 3/6 1188/2012, which was heard by this Court and vide order dated 30.03.2012, this Court directed the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, for determination as to whether the aforementioned plot Nos. 140 and 15 refer to the same plot of the petitioner or not. In terms of the aforesaid order, the petitioner had filed Misc. (Civil) Appeal No. 4/2012, before the learned District Judge, Karbi Anglong. The aforesaid appeal was disposed of by the learned District Judge, Karbi Anglong vide order dated 06.11.2017, directing the Estate Officer to hold a fresh inquiry. 4. It is the contention of the petitioner that no such fresh inquiry was conducted by the Estate Officer in the instant case in terms of the order dated 06.11.2017. It is also the contention of the petitioner that no such notice for any enquiry has also been issued to the petitioner, if at all any inquiry had been done. 5. Mr. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of the aforesaid order dated 06.11.2017, no notice was received by them. He also submits that no enquiry report was also submitted to them and the petitioner came to know about the inquiry only through the affidavit that has been filed by the respondent No. 4 in the instant case. In view of the aforesaid, he submits that since no inquiry has been done in terms of the order dated 06.11.2017, a fresh eviction notice that has been issued to the petitioner on 16.11.2022, cannot be sustained under the law as the same has been issued without holding a proper inquiry in terms of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. He has specifically referred to Section 4 of the aforesaid Act, which provides for serving of notice before issuance of any eviction notice. 6. Mr. Lahkar, learned CGC for the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 submits that Page No.# 4/6 notice was issued to the petitioner, however, he had not cooperated with the inquiry so conducted by the Estate Officer. He also submits that a joint survey was carried out by the Assistant Revenue Officer, Diphu Revenue Circle, KAAC, Diphu and one Senior Section Engineer (W), N.F. Railway, Dimapur for unauthorized encroachment in Diphu Railway Station. He further submits that in spite of notice issued to the petitioner, the petitioner did not cooperate with the Railway authorities and did not appear before the Estate Officer and in view of such conduct, eviction notices were issued against the unauthorized occupants of Railway land, amongst them the petitioner is also one. 7. It is seen that vide order dated 06.11.2017, passed by the learned District Judge, Karbi Anglong, the following was directed: “16. In the result, appeal is allowed partly. The impugned order dated 15-02-12 and the order 24-05-2012 are set aside. The Case of Eviction Case No. EO/212/LMG/DPU/140/10/W-A is remanded for holding enquiry afresh by the Estate Officer. Further the Estate Officer is directed to complete enquiry within two months from the date of receipt of the Judgment and Order along with Case Record of Eviction Case No. EO/212/LMG/DPU/140/10/W-A. Send the LCR along with copy of the Judgment and order immediately. Also send back the Case Record of DS 6/98. Accordingly this appeal is disposed of.” 8. It is seen that there is a very specific direction given regarding an inquiry to be held by the Estate Officer in the Eviction Case No. EO/212/LMG/DPU/140/10/W-A. However, from the records that have been placed before this Court, this Court has neither found any specific inquiry that has been conducted in terms of the order dated 06.11.2017 nor the learned CGC appearing for the Railway authorities could show before this Court that any inquiry in terms of the aforesaid order has been conducted. Page No.# 5/6 9. Mr. Lahkar, learned CGC for the Railway authorities has referred to Annexure-A/2 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 4, wherein an order dated 30.03.2022 can be seen. It is seen from the aforesaid order issued by the Assistant Revenue Officer, Diphu Revenue Circle, KAAC, Diphu that in pursuance to the KAAC letter No. KAAC/Rev-Power- 1666/2022/1606, dated 28.03.2022, he was directed to conduct joint survey and re-verification on 02.04.2022 in Diphu Railway Station at 8 a.m, in the matter of unauthorized encroachment with the Officials of Divisional Railway Manager (Works), Lumding and Revenue Officials of Diphu Circle as mentioned in the order, to identify the existing Railway land based on certified land plan of Railway. 10. From a reading of the aforesaid document, it is very clear that this is not an inquiry done or carried out in terms of the order dated 06.11.2017, passed by the learned District Judge, Karbi Anglong. In fact, this joint survey and re- verification was carried out due to some complaint received from KAAC. 11. Mr. Lahkar, learned CGC for the Railway authorities has also referred to a document at Annexure-A/3 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 4, which is a report dated 02.04.2022, signed by the Senior Section Engineer (W) as well as Assistant Revenue Officer, Diphu Circle, KAAC, Diphu, wherein it is seen that some joint survey was carried out by both the Departments, however, the same remained incomplete. 12. Therefore, from the above two documents, which have been referred by Mr. Lahkar, learned CGC for the Railway authorities, it cannot be said that any inquiry in terms of the order dated 06.11.2017, has been carried out by the Estate Officer. This Court is of the view that even after a specific direction from the learned District Judge, Karbi Anglong to hold an inquiry about the plot of Page No.# 6/6 land that has been mentioned, no inquiry has been carried out by the Estate Officer or any authorities of the Railway, even after elapse of about 10 years. What they have done is without conducting any inquiry they have issued a fresh a notice, which is not at all warranted under the law. 13. Taking into account, this aspect of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the matter can be send back to the respondent No. 4/Estate Officer, N.F. Railway, Lumding to hold an inquiry in terms of the order dated 06.11.2017, passed by the learned District Judge, Karbi Anglong, by giving sufficient opportunities of hearing in terms of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, and thereafter, take necessary action as required under the law. Needless to say, a copy of such inquiry report should be furnished to the petitioner. 14. The respondent No. 4/Estate Officer, N.F. Railway, Lumding shall complete the aforesaid exercise within a period of three months from date of passing of this order. 15. In view of the aforesaid finding, the impugned eviction notice No. W/212/LM/4/W-4, dated 16.11.2022 stands set aside and quashed. 16. In terms of above, this writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant