Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/3294/2025 of SMTI MADHUMALA BISWAS @ MADHUBALA BISWAS Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS on 20 July 2026
GAHC010127142025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3294/2025 SMTI MADHUMALA BISWAS @ MADHUBALA BISWAS W/O. LATE PRABIR BISWAS, R/O. VILL. PANIKHAITI, P.S. PRAGJYOTISHPUR, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF
GAHC010127142025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3294/2025
SMTI MADHUMALA BISWAS @ MADHUBALA BISWAS
W/O. LATE PRABIR BISWAS, R/O. VILL. PANIKHAITI, P.S.
PRAGJYOTISHPUR,
DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND
DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 6, ASSAM.
2:UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER
N.F. RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI- 11
DIST. KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM.
3:THE ESTATE OFFICER
N.F. RAILWAY
LUMDING
P.O. LUMDING
DIST. HOJAI
ASSAM.
4:THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
N.F. RAILWAY
LUMDING
P.O. AND P.S. LUMDING
DIST. HOJAI
ASSAM.
5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP (M)
DIST. KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM.
6:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
CHANDRAPUR
REVENUE CIRCLE
P.O. PRAGJYOTISHPUR
DIST. KAMRUP (M)
For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. P. Bhattacharyya, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. B. Chakraborty, CGC
: Mr. N. Das, Government Advocate
: Mr. S. R. Baruah, Standing Counsel
: Mr. S. Dutta, Standing Counsel
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 21.07.2026
Heard Ms. P. Bhattacharyya, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1. I have also heard Mr. B. Chakraborty, the learned CGC appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and Mr. N. Das, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the District Administration, Kamrup (M).
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the order dated 04.06.2025 passed by the Estate
Officer of the N.F. Railway, Lumding in exercise of powers under Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act of 1971’).
3. The case of the Petitioner herein is that the land in question cannot be treated to be a public premises within the ambit of the Act of 1971 inasmuch as the land in question is a Government Khas land and the Petitioner had duly applied seeking allotment which is presently pending.
4. This Court has duly taken note of the impugned order dated 04.06.2025 and the issues which have been raised by the Petitioner before this Court. The issues which have been raised are questions of facts as to whether the land under the occupation of the Petitioner is a railway land or Government khas land. There is an appellate remedy available against an order passed under Section 5 of the Act of 1971 i.e. an appeal to District Judge within whose jurisdiction the land is situated and that would be the District Judge, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati.
5. Taking into account that there is an alternative and efficacious remedy available, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition for which the writ petition stands dismissed.
6. Before parting with the records, this Court observes that as the instant writ petition is dismissed on the ground of being not entertained, the Petitioner shall not be precluded or prejudiced to approach the learned District Judge, Kamrup (M) challenging the order dated 04.06.2025 passed by the Estate Officer, N.F. Railway, Lumding.
7. This Court also takes note of that there is a period of limitation for filing the appeal and as this Court is not entertaining the instant writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative and efficacious remedy, this Court observes and directs that in the circumstance, the Petitioner files an Appeal within 12 days from the date of the present order, the Appeal be taken up on merits for consideration without insisting on the question of limitation.
8. This Court also observes that the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had passed an interim order thereby protecting the Petitioner from eviction. It is the opinion of this Court that if the Petitioner is relegated to the Appellate Authority and some protection is not granted for a period of 12 days, the entire exercise of filing the Appeal would become infructuous.
9. Accordingly, the interim order which had been passed by this Court on 12.06.2025 stands extended for a period of 12 days from today.
10. This Court further observes that the learned District Judge, Kamrup (M) shall consider passing of necessary interim directions upon filing of the Appeal as may be deemed fit, in accordance with law, without being influenced by the present order extending the interim protection.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant