Guwahati, June 23: The Gauhati High Court has issued a notice on an appeal filed against a single bench judgment dismissing petitions challenging a recent eviction drive carried out by the authorities in Silsako wetland in the city.
Notably, the petitioners before the single judge bench had said they were occupying small plots of government land in some villages of Beltola mouza under Dispur revenue circle.
They alleged that a police team, along with officials of the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority (GMDA) and Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC), had come to the area with bulldozers to evict them and demolish their dwelling houses.
The single judge bench held that the land in question was khas land and that the petitioners were illegally occupying the said land.
On the argument regarding prospective applicability of the Water Bodies Act, 2008, the single judge bench said the basic burden upon the petitioners was to establish that they have been residing in the lands from a period prior to coming of the Act.
The court refused to interfere, saying the greater goal involving public interest is being sought to be achieved.
In the appeal, the appellant claimed that she was in possession of government land measuring two kathas, and had constructed a kutcha house on it, which was demolished by the officials subsequently after the single bench decision.
It was further submitted that the appellant was entitled for allotment of land under the Land Policy, 1989, which provides that land within Guwahati may be settled on payment of due premium.
“The single judge has erred in holding that the court cannot enter into the issue of whether the appellant-petitioners were residing on the said lands before the year 2008 as that would entail “factual determination,” which is supposedly not within the ambit of the High Court. Therefore, the single judge bench has allowed a retrospective application of a prospective legislation,” the appellant argued.
The appellant also argued that the single judge ignored the fact that the issue of whether a notice had to be issued to the appellant under Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules framed under the Regulation of 1886 before eviction, has been referred by the court to a division bench for a final consideration in view of several conflicting judgments passed by the court.
“Therefore, the respondents cannot exercise power under a rule, the vires of which is presently under consideration before a larger bench,” the appellant argued.
The petitioners further argued that under the Settlement Rules, a notice needed to be issued before carrying out such an eviction drive.