Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/14 vs The General Manager on 9 March, 2026
Page No.# 1/14
GAHC010035712026
2026:GAU-AS:3424
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP/21/2026
ASWINI BEZBARUAH
SON OF RAMAKANTA BEZBARUAH, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF NEAR
K.K. HANDIQUE GOVERNMENT SANSKRIT COLLEGE, P.O. AND P.S.-
JALUKBARI, DISTRICT - KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE GENERAL MANAGER, N.F. (NORTHEAST FRONTIER) RAILWAY AND 3
ORS.
MALIGAON, GUWAHATI -781011
2:THE GENERAL MANAGER (CONSTRUCTION)
N.F. (NORTHEAST FRONTIER) RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI -781011.
3:THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTION)
N.F. (NORTHEAST FRONTIER) RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI -781011.
4:THE ESTATE OFFICER
N.F. RAILWAY (NORTHEAST FRONTIER) RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI -781011
Advocate for the Petitioner : SADHAN KALITA, MRITYUNJOY KALITA,GUNJAN DAS,MR P
DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR. K GOGOI(C.G.C.)
Page No.# 2/14
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
ORDER
09.03.2026
Heard Mr. P. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Gogoi,
learned Central Government Counsel (herein after CGC), for all the respondents.
2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner
has challenged the Judgment and Order, dated 12.02.2026, passed by the
learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati, in Misc.
Appeal (Civil) No. 25/2022.
3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and order, dated
12.02.2026, the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Kamrup (Metro),
Guwahati (hereinafter, learned Appellate Court), has affirmed the Eviction Order,
dated 17.02.2021, passed by the Estate Officer, NF Railway, Guwahati; in
Eviction Case No. EO/MLG/139/2020.
4. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition, are briefly
stated as under-
“The petitioner herein is a bonafide purchaser of a plot of land by virtue of
a registered sale deed, dated 09.05.2016, with specific boundaries under
the Dag No. 147 (Old) 353 (New), K.P. Patta No. 30 (Old) 183 (New), and
he got his name mutated over the said plot of land, and since the date of
purchase, he is in continuous possession of the same. But, the Estate
Officer, NF Railway, had issued a notice to him, alleging encroachment,
without conclusive demarcation of the boundary through boundary to
boundary verification and thereafter, instituted a proceeding under the
Page No.# 3/14Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.
Thereafter, the Estate Officer had passed the impugned order of
eviction, dated 17.02.2021, without proper verification of the boundaries of
the land of alleged encroachment and it was passed only on the internal
map and presumption, and not on technical and legally admissible proof.
Then being aggrieved, the petitioner had challenged the same, by filing
Misc Appeal (Civil) No. 25/2022, before the court of learned Addl. District
Judge, No. 2, Kamrup(M), Guwahati. But, the learned Appellate Court, vide
impugned order, dated 12.02.2026, had dismissed the said appeal,
allegedly by mis-reading and selective reading of the pleadings and
erroneously construed the geographical location/proximity to the railway
alignment, as admission of boundaries of the sale deed as overlap and
without reading the pleading as a whole, along with registered sale deed
and other cogent material records.”
5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court, on the grounds
that –
(i) There was no conclusive finding of encroachment by the Estate
Officer.
(ii) The learned Appellate Court has failed to consider the same and
also misread the pleadings and travelled beyond the record.
(iii) The respondents herein have failed to discharge the burden of
proof, even though the same lies upon them; by showing boundary to boundary
verification that there is well defined boundary in the sale deed and the
petitioner herein has been possessing the said plot of land, as described in the
sale deed; but the learned Appellate Court has overlooked the same.
Page No.# 4/14
(iv) No documentation, whatsoever, is produced and proved by the
respondents, so as to support their contention that the petitioner has been
occupying land beyond the boundaries described in his sale deed.
(v) The respondents have failed to proof that the petitioner is
residing outside the boundary described in the sale deed.
5. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Estate Officer
had passed the order of eviction, dated 17.02.2021, only on the basis of
assumption and without conclusive demarcation and also boundary to boundary
verification; and that the said finding of the Estate Officer was based on internal
maps and presumption and not on any technical or legally admissible proof; and
that the learned Appellate Court also, by affirming the impugned order, dated
17.02.2021, has compounded the error that was committed by the Estate
Officer of N.F. Railway. According to him the respondent herein had failed to
discharge its burden to establish that the land under the occupation of the
petitioner belongs to it. It is the further submission of Mr. Das that as observed
by the learned appellate court in the impugned judgment, the petitioner had
never admitted the discrepancy in respect of the boundary described in the Sale
Deed and in the Memo of Appeal specially in para No.3, rather it was a
description of the boundary only and it never amounted to admission under the
Evidence Act. Further submission of Mr. Das is that the learned Appellate Court
has also misread and selectively read the pleadings, especially the pleadings
made by the petitioner in paragraph No. 3 of the Memo of Appeal, regarding
geographical location; and that the learned Appellate Court has also construed
the same as admission of boundaries not consistent with the sale deed.
5.1. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned
Page No.# 5/14
Appellate Court has failed to read the pleading as a whole and also failed to
read the same in connection with the registered sale deed; and that the learned
Appellate Court has re-appreciated the facts, beyond the permissible scope
under the law.
5.2 It is the further submission of Mr. Das that the findings, so recorded by the
learned Appellate Court and also by the Estate Officer; are not based on any
legally admissible foundation and as such, the findings of the learned Appellate
Court and the Estate Officer, NF Railways, are perverse and are liable to be
interfered with; and that the petitioner has never encroached upon any land
belonging to the Railway department; and that since the date of his purchase,
the petitioner has been residing within the boundaries described in the sale
deed; and it is well settled that when there is a dispute regarding the boundary,
the boundary described in the Sale Deed will prevail and the petitioner has been
occupying the land described in the Sale Deed. And as such, the impugned
judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court and the Eviction
Order, passed by the Estate Officer, NF Railways, are liable to be set aside and
quashed and under such circumstances, Mr. Das has contended to allow this
petition.
5.3. Mr. Das, in support of his submission, has referred to the following
decisions:-
(i) Birendra Sankar Sanyal and Ors. Vs. Dinesh Chandra
Sarma, reported in (2015) 5 GLR 731;
(ii) Anil Rishi Vs. Gurbaksh Singh, reported in (2006) 5 SCC
558;
Page No.# 6/14
(iii) Sita Ram Bhau Patil Vs. Ramchandra Nago Patil, reported
in (1977) 2 SCC 49;
(iv) Narayan Govind Gavate Vs. State of Maharashtra,
reported in (1977) 1 SCC 133;
(v) Sheodhyan Singh and Others Vs. Musammat Sanichara
Kuer & Others, reported in 1961 SCC OnLine SC 164;
(vi) Ayyavu Vs. Prabha and Others, reported in 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 522;
(vii) Tejlal & Another Vs. Pragyanand & Another, I.L.R. 2023
M.P. 1190;
6. Per contra, Mr. Gogoi, learned CGC, appearing for the respondents, has
supported the impugned judgment and order, so passed by the learned
Additional District Judge, Kamrup (M) Guwahati. He submits that the petitioner
is not residing in the plot of land described in the sale deed; rather, she has
been residing in a different plot of land which falls within 39 meters from the
middle of the existing railway track. Taking this court through the pleading of
the petitioner, Mr. Gogoi submits that the petitioner has never described the
boundary of the land in his pleading; and that the learned Appellate Court has
observed in respect of the same, in paragraph No. 34 of the impugned
judgment, dated 12.02.2026.
6.1 It is the further submission of Mr. Gogoi, that the land being occupied by
the petitioner is a public premise and the Estate Officer has rightly passed the
Eviction Order, dated 17.02.2021; and the learned Appellate Court has also
rightly affirmed the same vide impugned judgment and order, dated 12.02.2026.
Page No.# 7/14
6.2 Mr. Gogoi, referring to the sale deed, which is annexed to the petition as
‘Annexure-3’ and also in the Memo of Appeal, filed under Section 9 of the Public
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, especially to
paragraph No. 3; wherein, the boundary of the land, which the petitioner has
presently been occupying, has been given, pointed out that the description of
the land in the sale deed and description of the land in paragraph No. 3 of the
Appeal Memo are different. And as such, it can be held that the petitioner has
been occupying a different plot of land from that of the land described in the
sale deed and under such circumstances, Mr. Gogoi submits that the impugned
Judgment and Order, passed by the learned Appellate Court and also, the
impugned Eviction Order, passed by the Estate Officer; suffers from no infirmity
or illegality, requiring any interference of this Court. He also submits that no
relief what so ever, which is not founded in the pleading can be granted.
6.3 Mr. Gogoi, also submits that the Railway department has been laying a
double line and it is a public project and it could not be completed within time
only due to its land being occupied by the petitioner herein and under Section
41 (ha) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which provides that an injunction cannot
be granted if it would impede or delay the progress or completion of any
infrastructure project or interfere with the continued provision of relevant facility
related thereto or services being the subject matter of such project. He also
submits that laying of double track is a time bound infrastructure project of
immense public importance and under such circumstances also, Mr. Gogoi has
contended to dismiss the petition.
6.4. Lastly, Mr. Gogoi submits that the jurisdiction of this court under Article
227 of the constitution of India is supervisory only and it cannot re-appreciate
evidence like an appellate court and that the learned appellate court herein has
Page No.# 8/14
not committed any perversity requiring any interference of this court.
6.5. In support of his submission Mr. Gogoi, learned CGC, following decisions:-
(i) Divyagnakumari Harisinh Parmar and Others Vs. Union
of India and Others, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2064;
(ii) Jai Singh and Others Vs. Municipal Corporation of
Delhi and Another, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 385.
7. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties,
this Court has carefully gone through the memo of appeal and the documents
placed on record and also perused the impugned eviction order, dated
17.02.2021, passed by the Estate Officer, NF Railway, Guwahati; in Eviction Case
No. EO/MLG/139/2020 and also perused the impugned judgment and order,
dated 12.02.2026, passed by the learned Appellate Court.
8. It appears that in paragraph No. 26, the learned Appellate Court has made
a categorical observation to the effect that the pleaded case of the petitioner is
that the boundary of the land occupied by him is as follows-
On Eastern side : a broad gauge railway line;
On Southern side : the campus of K.K. Handique Government
College;
On the Northern side : Public road;
8.1. Thereafter, in paragraph No. 27, the learned Appellate Court has held that
the boundary, as described in the sale deed, dated 09.05.2016; is as follows-
“North : 28 ft. wide College road;
South : Land of Akhtar Hussain;
East : Land of K.K.H. Sanskrit College; and
Page No.# 9/14
West : Land of Hemanta Das."
8.2. Thereafter, in paragraph No. 28, the learned Appellate Court has observed
as under-
“The discrepancy in the boundaries is glaring and
significant, and the appellant has not been able to
satisfactorily explain this discrepancy. The eastern
boundary, as per the Appellant’s own admission in the
appeal, is a broad gauge railway line, whereas, as per the
sale deed, the eastern boundary is the land of K.K.H.
Sanskrit College. This clearly indicates that the land
presently in occupation of the Appellant is not the same
land as described in the sale deed dated 09.05.2016.”
9. The aforementioned finding, so recorded by the learned Appellate Court,
while examined in the light of the sale deed and also, in light of the statement
and averment made in the memorandum of appeal filed by the petitioner
herein, under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized
Occupants) Act, 1971, this Court fails to find any infirmity or misreading of the
pleading by the learned Appellate Court. Mr. Gogoi, learned CGC, has rightly
pointed this out during hearing and this Court finds sufficient force in the same
and is in complete agreement with his submission.
10. It also appears that from the contention being made by the respondent
herein that the petitioner is occupying a distinct and different plot of land which
he alleged to purchase vide alleged Sale Deed dated 09.05.16 and therefore, he
had not submitted the complete copy of the Deed of Sale dated 09.05.16
(Annexure- 3) wherein the page containing the Schedule of Property has been
suppressed. It is also appears that in the guise of alleged Myadi Patta land the
Page No.# 10/14
petitioner has been occupying 160 Sqm of Railway land comprising of the
following boundaries:-
North : Railway land,
South : Railway land,
East : Railway land, and
West : Private land.
11. It also appears that the Estate Officer has relied upon the Certified Land
Plan Sheet No. 82, which was jointly signed and sealed by the Deputy
Commissioner and Collector, Kamrup, Guwahati; the then Circle Officer,
Guwahati Revenue Circle; Mandal and another, on 28.06.2002, and the said
Certified Land Plan Sheet No. 82, clearly reveals that the railway lane existed in
the area and that the railway boundary is marked at 39 meters from the middle
of the track for both sides (eastern and western).
12. And it appears from the said Certified Land Plan Sheet No. 82 that the land
being occupied by the petitioner falls with the 30 meters from the middle of the
tract. The learned appellate court had also taken note of the same in the
impugned judgment and order and record a categorical finding to that effect
and it cannot be said that the respondents have failed to discharge the burden
of proof which lies upon it.
12.1. Though referring to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court (i) Anil Rishi
(supra) (ii) Narayan Govind Gavate(supra) and another decision of this
court in (iii) Birendra Sankar Sanyal (supra) Mr. Das learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that the burden of proof lies upon the respondent
herein that the land being occupied by the petitioner belongs to it and that the
Page No.# 11/14
respondent had failed to discharge the same, yet in view of the discussion and
finding in the foregoing paragraph, the submission of Mr. Das left this court
unimpressed. That being so, the decisions relied upon him would not come into
his assistance.
13. Further this court finds that in the para No. 19 of the memorandum of
appeal the petitioner herein had stated that “The Appellant fairly admits
that on the eastern side of his land existing broad-gauge line
belonging to the Railway is there but there is clear boundary
mark for identification of his land and the railway line.” Based
upon this statement Mr. Gogoi, learned CGC has pointed out that the petitioner
has admitted that there is discrepancy in respect of the land being occupied by
him and on such count the submission of Mr. Das, learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner had never admitted the discrepancy in respect of
the boundary described in the Sale Deed and in the Memo of Appeal specially is
not factually correct.
13.1. There appears to be force in the submission of Mr. Gogoi, the learned
CGC. And in that view of the matter, the decision referred by Mr. Das in respect
of admission, the case of (i) Sita Ram Bhau Patil (supra) would not
advance the argument of Mr. Das. There is discrepancy in respect of the
boundary of the land being occupied by the petitioner and as described in his
memorandum of appeal from that of the Sale Deed. And as such no relief can
be granted him in view of the decision referred by Mr. Gogoi in the case of
Divyagnakumari Harisinh Parmar (supra).
14. There is no quarrel at the bar about the proposition of law that when there
Page No.# 12/14
is dispute regarding the boundary then the boundary described in the Sale Deed
will always prevail. But, in the instant case it has been established that the
petitioner has been occupying a plot of land which different from Sale Deed. In
that view of the matter the decision referred by Mr. Das in (i) Sheodhyan Singh
(supra) (ii) Ayyavu (supra) (iii) Tejlal (supra), would not
advance the case of the petitioner. Therefore, this court is unable to record
concurrence with the submission of Mr. Das in this regard.
15. It is to be noted here that the statement of objects and reasons of
enacting the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958
was enacted to provide for a speedy machinery for the eviction of unauthorised
occupants of public premises. Section 5 of the Act provides for taking
possession of the public premises which are in unauthorised occupation of
persons.
16. It is also to be noted here that proceedings under Rule 5 of the Public
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Rules are treated as summery in
nature, intended to provide a special, speedy procedure distinct from an
ordinary civil suit under the Code of Civil Procedure. Under the Public Premises
(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, the entire scheme of Sections 4
and 5 (read with the Rules) is designed as a special mechanism for quick
eviction of unauthorised occupants of public premises, avoiding elaborate
trial-type procedures.
17. This court has carefully considered the submissions advanced by the
learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the decisions referred by
the learned counsel for the petitioner. And in view of the aforesaid discussion
Page No.# 13/14
and finding this court is unable to record with his submission. And the decision
referred by him also would not advance his argument.
18. Even though, a contention is being made by the petitioner that the land
being occupied by him was mutated in the name of the petitioner, yet, it is well
settled that mutation of land in the revenue record neither creates nor
extinguishes title to the property and it also has no presumptive value on title.
The only purpose of the same is to pay the land revenue in question. Reference
in this context can be made to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the
case of Balwant Singh Vs. Daulat Singh, reported in (1997) 7SCC 137;
which has also been relied upon by the learned Appellate Court.
19. It is not in dispute that the land in question is required for laying another
railway track and Mr. Gogoi, learned CGC, has categorically submitted that the
said project is a time bound project with great public importance and it could
not be completed because of its land being occupied by the petitioner herein.
And under Section 41(ha) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, no injunction can be
granted, in respect of any infrastructure project. This Court finds force in his
submission.
20. Even though, several other grounds are also being taken by Mr. Das, the
learned counsel for the petitioner, during his submission and also in this
petition; yet, this Court finds the said grounds bereft of merit and the learned
counsel for the petitioner has failed to demonstrate before this Court about the
arbitrariness or any illegality being committed by the Estate Officer and also by
the learned Appellate Court.
Page No.# 14/14
21. On such ground, this Court finds this Civil Revision Petition devoid of any
merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant