Sushil Baid And Anr vs Union Of India And 2 Ors.

Page No.# 1/18
GAHC010136452026

2026:GAU-AS:12733
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP(IO)/296/2026

SUSHIL BAID AND ANR
SON OF LATE HULASH CHAND BAID, RESIDENT OF AASHI HOLIRAM
HERITAGE, FLAT NO. E405, KRC ROAD, BHARALUMUKH, GUWAHATI -
781009, DISTRICT- KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM.
2: SMT SHOBHA DEVI PATWARI
WIFE OF SRI RAJKUMAR PATWARI
(DAUGHTER OF LATE HULASH CHAND BAID)
RESIDENT OF BIJOYNAGAR
P.O. AND P.S.- BIJOYNAGAR
PIN - 781122
DISTRICT - KAMRUP
ASSAM
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS.
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, RAIL BHAWAN, 1, RAISINA ROAD, RAJPATH
AREA, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI, DELHI - 110001.
2:N.F. RAILWAY
REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER
N.F. RAILWAY
RANGIA DIVISION
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI - 781011
KAMRUP (METRO)
ASSAM

Page No.# 2/18
3:DIVISIONAL ENGINEER/ GHY
NORTH-EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY/ MALIGAON
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI - 781011
DISTRICT - KAMRUP (METRO)
ASSAM

: BEFORE ::
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA


For the Petitioners : Mr. S. Dutta, Senior Advocate
: Mr. B. K. Jain, Advocate

For the Respondents :
Mr. K. Gogoi, CGC


Date of Hearing : 17.08.2026
Date of Judgment : 02.09.2026

JUDGMENT& ORDER
1. Heard Mr. S. Dutta, the learned senior counsel assisted by
Mr. B.K. Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K.
Gogoi, the learned Central Government Counsel, appearing for the
respondents.
2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India has been filed by the petitioners, namely, (i) Sushil Baid and (ii)
Smt Shobha Devi Patwari, impugning the judgment and order dated
07.04.2026, passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Kamrup (M),

Page No.# 3/18
in Misc. Appeal No. 14/2025.
3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant
CRP(I/O), in brief, are that both the petitioners are brother and sister in
relationship and claim to be owners of a plot of land covered by Dag
No. 233 under K.P. Patta No. 33, measuring about 1Katha,10 Lechas,
out of which 1Katha 5Lechasland belongs to the petitioners. The
petitioners have also claimed to have constructed an RCC building over
the said land. The building, after being assessed by Guwahati Municipal
Corporation, has also been allotted a holding number i.e., Holding No.
1610, in Ward No.11A of Guwahati Municipal Corporation.
4. It is contended by the petitioners that on 28.08.2025, the
petitioners received a copy of an order dated 31.07.2025, passed ex-
parte, by the Estate Officer, in Eviction Case No. EO/MLG/298/2025
against Petitioner No. 1 for his eviction as unauthorized occupant of
railway land at Bharalumukh between Kamakhya-Guwahati section (in
short “KYQ-GHY section”), covered by Dag No. 21 under Mouza
Jalukbari of Village Bharalumukh, Guwahati, Kamrup (M), Assam. It is
further contended that the said order was received by one of the staff
of the tenant of the petitioner, namely, Gautam Dey. It was directed in
the said order that the petitioner should vacate the land measuring
about 84 square meters indicated in the order within a period of fifteen
days from the date of receipt of the said order.
5. It is further pertinent to mention herein that the aforesaid
order dated 31.07.2025 was passed ex-parte against the Petitioner No.
1. It transpires from the said order that the notice under the Public

Page No.# 4/18
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 was issued to
the Petitioner No. 1 and same was received by the Petitioner No. 1on
23.06.2025 and 16.07.2025 respectively, the said fact has been denied
by the petitioners.
6. Being aggrieved by the Order dated 31.07.2025, passed by
the Estate Officer, the petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 9
of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971
before the Court of learned District Judge, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. The
said appeal was registered as Misc. Appeal (Civil) No. 14/2025. It is
pertinent to mention herein that the petitioner No. 2 did not prefer the
aforesaid appeal as she never received any notice from the Estate
Officer, neither she was a party to the eviction proceeding pending
before the Estate Officer.
7. The present respondents appeared before the Court of
learned District Judge, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in the aforesaid appeal
and filed their written objection wherein they took the plea that the
notices issued by the Estate Officer were duly served on the petitioner
No. 1 and he was found to be an unauthorized occupant of land
covered by dag No. 21 which was acquired by the railways for the
purpose of construction of a third line between Kamakhya and
Guwahati section of NF Railway, which has been sanctioned by Railway
Board. Ultimately, by its judgment and order dated 07.04.2026, passed
in Misc. Appeal No. 14/2025, the Court of learned District Judge,
Kamrup (M), Guwahati dismissed the aforesaid appeal. Being aggrieved
by the dismissal of the appeal, the instant application under Article 227

Page No.# 5/18
of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners.
8. Mr. S Dutta, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners
has submitted that the petitioners never received any notice issued by
the Estate Officer, either under Section 3B or under Section 4 of the
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, before
proceeding ex-parte against them. He submits that the petitioner No. 1
resides at “Aashi Holiram Heritage, Flat No. E405, KRC Road,
Bharalumukh, Guwahati-781009” in the district of Kamrup (M), Assam.
He submits that the business of the petitioner No. 1 is at Hindustan
Stationary Store, House No. 46, SRCB Road, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati-
781001 in the district of Kamrup, Assam. He further submits that the
petitioner No. 2 resides at Bijaynagar in the district of Kamrup, Assam,
which is about 30 km away from Guwahati. He submits that the
address of the petitioner No. 1, shown in the notice issued by the
Estate Officer was “Railway Plot No. 139 (cat-1) at KM-7/2-1 (S/L) at
Bharalumukh between KYQ-GHY Section”. He submits that apparently
notices were not sent at the correct address of the petitioner No. 1,
therefore, there is no question of receiving the said notice by the
petitioner No. 1.
9. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners further
submits that there is no material on record to indicate that the notice
issued to the petitioners by the Estate Officer was served in the manner
as provided under Rule 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorized Occupants) Rules, 1971. He submits that as per the said
rules the notice under Section 3B or Section 4(1) of the Public Premises

Page No.# 6/18
(Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 shall have to be served
in addition to any mode of service specified in the Act, by delivering or
tendering a copy of notice or order, as the case may be, to the person
for whom it is intended or to any adult member of his family, or by
sending it by registered post acknowledgement due in a letter
addressed to that person at his usual or last known place of residence
or business.
10. He, however, submits that, in the instant case there is no
material on record to indicate the compliance of Rule 4 of the
aforementioned Rules. He, therefore, submits that the Estate Officer
has violated the principle of natural justice by deciding to proceed ex-
parte against the petitioners without even ascertaining due service of
notice on the petitioners. He submits that the court of learned District
Judge has also erred by holding in the impugned order that since the
order dated 31.07.2025was admittedly received by the petitioners and
as the said order was also sent in the same address in which notices
issued by the Estate Officer were sent, hence, the plea of the petitioner
No. 1 regarding non receipt of notice was not considered to be true. He
submits that the learned District Judge arrived at the satisfaction
regarding service of notice merely on the basis of assumption, without
there being any material on record to arrive at such conclusion.
11. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners further
submits that the petitioners are the owner of the land over which they
have constructed an RCC building and same was duly assessed by
Guwahati Municipal Corporation as per the provisions of the Guwahati

Page No.# 7/18
Municipal Corporation Act, 1969. He submits that they cannot be
evicted from their own land without following due procedure of law as
same would be violative of the Constitutional rights guaranteed them
under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. He submits that unless
the petitioners are afforded an opportunity of showing the basis of their
rights over the land on which they have constructed the RCC building,
before the Estate Officer any order of eviction passed by the Estate
Officer would be violative of statutory provisions contained the Public
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. In support of
his submission, the learned Senior counsel has cited following rulings:
i) Roop Singh Meghi vs Punjab National
Bank and Ors. reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 .
ii) M Naga Venkata Laxmi vs
Vishakhapattanam Municipal Corporation and
Ors. reported in (2007) 8 SCC 748 .
12. On the other hand, Mr. K Gogoi, the learned Central
Government Counsel has submitted that the court of learned District
Judge, Kamrup, Assam has rightly dismissed the appeal preferred by
the present petitioner No. 1 under Section 9 of the Public Premises
(Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. He submits that there
is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and same does not warrant
any interference by this court in exercise of its extra ordinary
supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
13. He submits that the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on

Page No.# 8/18
the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited
to seeing that an inferior court or tribunal functions within the limits of
its authority. He submits that it is not to be exercised for correction of
an error apparent on the face of the record, much less an error of law.
He submits that while exercising supervisory powers, the High Court
does not sit as an appellate court. He further submits that while
exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the
High Court cannot substitute its own judgment in place of that of the
subordinate court to correct a purported error by such court.
14. He further submits that the appellate court of the learned
District Judge has rightly held that when the copy of order dated
31.07.2025 was received by one of the tenants of the petitioner No. 1,
namely, Sri Gautam Dey and admittedly the said order was sent in the
same address in which the notice issued by the Estate Officer under the
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 to the
Petitioner No. 1 was sent, hence, the plea that the petitioner No. 1 did
not receive the notice cannot be considered as true. He submits that
there is no perversity in the conclusion arrived at, regarding service of
notice on the petitioner No. 1, by the learned District Judge justifying
any interference by this court in exercise of supervisory power. He
submits that the land covered by Dag No. 21 was acquired by Railways
rd
for the purpose of the 3 railway track between Kamakhya junction
and Guwahati junction. He submits that the satellite images as well as
railway cadastral map prepared by Settlement Authorities clearly shows
that the railway plot No. 139 (CAT-1) at KM 7/2-1 (S/L) is under
encroachment and the said fact has been rightly taken into

Page No.# 9/18
consideration by the Estate Officer as well as by the Court of learned
District Judge, Kamrup (M) in the impugned judgment. He further
submits that the appellate court also took into consideration the
discrepancy in the boundaries of the land claimed to have been
purchased by the petitioners by registered sale deed dated 30.04.2002
in coming to the finding that the petitioners have purchased a different
plot of land which is away from the existing railway track. As such, he
submits that the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference
by this court in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
15. In support of his submission, the learned Central
Government Counsel has cited the following rulings:
i) Madan Mohan (Dead) through LRs vs.
Thakar Dass through LRs reported in (2026) SCC
Online SC 1365 .
ii) Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise
Ltd. and Anr. Vs B Gurappa Naidu reported in
(2026) SCC Online SC 745 .
iii) Md. Yunus vs. Md. Mustaquim and Ors.
reported in (1983) 4 SCC 566 .
iv) Harendra Nath Bhuyan vs. Union of India
and Ors judgment dated 30.07.2025 in WP(C) No.
6380/2019 .

Page No.# 10/18
v) Nagendra Nath Bora &Anr. Vs. the
Commissioner of Hills Division and appeal, Assam
and Ors. reported in 1958 SCC Online SC 45 .
16. I have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available
on record. I have also gone through the rulings cited by the learned
counsel for the both sides in support of their respective submissions.
17. The point to be determined in this revision petition is as to
whether the appellate court was right in holding, in the impugned
judgment, that the plea that the petitioner No. 1 did not receive the
notice issued by the Estate Officer under the provision of the Public
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 is not true,
and whether there is any material on record to indicate due service of
such notice on the petitioners.
18. There is no dispute regarding the legal proposition that
while exercising its supervisory powers under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, this court is not expected to sit on appeal against
every erroneous finding of the court, whose judgment / order has been
impugned before it. It is supposed to exercise its power of
superintendence only in the event of gross abuse of jurisdiction by the
subordinate court. There is also no dispute regarding the legal
proposition that the supervisory power under Article 227 has to be
sparingly exercised and with circumspection. However, in a case where
material on record indicates that there is violation of principles of
natural justice as well as violation of any statutory law, which safeguard

Page No.# 11/18
the principle of natural justice, this court may not refrain itself from
exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India for safeguarding the ends of justice.
19. In the instant case, the main contention of the petitioners is
that they were not afforded the opportunity of being heard before
passing the impugned order dated 31.07.2025, by the Estate Officer, NF
Railway, Maligaon in Eviction Case No. EO/MLG/2025, whereby the
petitioner No. 1 was directed to vacate the railway plot No. 139 (cat-1)
at KM7/2-1 (S/L). On perusal of the aforesaid order dated 31.07.2025,
it appears that show cause notice dated 12.06.2025 issued under
Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants)
Act, 1971 with wrong dag number of the land in question. Later on, on
07.10.2025, a fresh notice was issued to the petitioner No. 1. It is
stated in the order dated 31.07.2025 that the notice dated 12.06.2025
was received by the petitioner No. 1 on 23.06.2025 and the second
notice dated 10.07.2025 was received by the petitioner No. 1 on
16.07.2025. However, on perusal of the records of the Eviction Case
No. EO/MLG/2025, it appears that both the notices bear initials of some
persons with dates 23.06.2025 and 16.07.2025 below the said initials.
The petitioner No. 1 has denied the receipt of said notices.
20. The Rule 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized
Occupants) Rules, 1971 prescribes the manner of service of notices and
orders issued under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized
Occupants) Act, 1971. For the sake of convenience, the said provisions
are quoted herein below.

Page No.# 12/18
4. Manner of service of notices and orders.
(1) In addition to any mode of service specified in the Act,
[a notice issued under [section 3B or sub-section (1) of
section 4] [ Substituted by G.S.R. 1114(E), dated 23-9-
1986 (w.e.f. 29-9-1986).] or sub-section (2) of section 5-A
or sub-section (1) of section 5-B or sub-section (1) or sub-
section (1-A) of section 6 ][or an order issued under
section 3-A or sub-section (1) of section 5] [Substituted by
G.S.R. 3(E), dated 19-12-1997 (w.e.f. 2-1-1998). ][or sub-
section (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (5) of section
5-B or sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 5-C or
sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 7 of the said
Act shall be served by delivering, or tendering a copy of
the notice or order, as the case may be,] [ Substituted by
G.S.R. 1114(E), dated 23-9-1986 (w.e.f. 29-9-1986).] to
the person for whom it is intended or to any adult member
of his family, or by sending it by registered post
acknowledgment due in a letter addressed to that person
at his usual or last-known place of residence or business.
(2) Where the copy of [the notice or the order, as the case
may be] [Substituted by G.S.R. 1114(E), dated 23-9-1986
(w.e.f. 29-9-1986). ] under sub-rule (1) is delivered or
tendered the signature of the person to whom the copy is
so delivered or tendered should be obtained in token of
acknowledgment of the service.
(3) In respect of [a notice issued under [section 3B or sub-
section (1) of section 4] [Substituted by G.S.R. 1114(E),
dated 23-9-1986 (w.e.f. 29-9-1986). ] or sub-section (2) of
section 5-A or sub-section (1) or sub-section (1-A) of

Page No.# 13/18
section 6 ][or an order issued under section 3-A or sub-
section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 5-A] [ Substituted
by G.S.R. 3(E), dated 19-12-1997 (w.e.f. 2-1-1998).][or
sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (5) of
section 5-B or sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section
5-C or sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 7 of
the said Act] [Substituted by G.S.R. 1114(E), dated 23-9-
1986 (w.e.f. 29-9-1986). ] where the person or the adult
member of the family of such person refuses to sign the
acknowledgment, or where such person cannot be found
after using all due and reasonable diligence, and there is
no adult member of the family of such person a copy of
[the notice or the order, as the case may be] [Substituted
by G.S.R. 1114(E), dated 23-9-1986 (w.e.f. 29-9-
1986). ] shall be affixed on the outer door or some other
conspicuous part of the ordinary residence or usual place
of business of such person and the original shall be
returned to the estate officer who issued [the notice or the
order, as the case may be] [Substituted by G.S.R. 1114(E),
dated 23-9-1986 (w.e.f. 29-9-1986). ] with a report
endorsed thereon or annexed thereto stating that a copy
has been so affixed, the circumstances under which it was
done so and the name [and] [ Inserted by G.S.R. 741,
dated 4-7-1981 (w.e.f. 8-8-1981).] address of the person,
if any, by whom the ordinary residence or usual place of
business was identified and in whose presence the copy
was affixed.
(4) [ If a notice under [section 3B or sub-section (1) of
section 4] [ Substituted by G.S.R. 1114(E), dated 23-9-
1986 (w.e.f. 29-9-1986).] or sub-section (2) of section 5-A

Page No.# 14/18
or sub-section (1) or sub-section (1-A) of section 6 or an
order issued under sub-section (1) of section 5 or sub-
section (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (5) of section
5-B or sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 5-E or
sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 7 of the said
Act cannot be served in the manner provided in sub-rule
(1), the estate officer may, if he thinks fit, direct that such
notice or order, as the case may be, shall also be
published in at least one newspaper having circulation in
the locality and he may also proclaim the contents of any
notice or order in the locality by beat of drum.]
21. On a bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it appears
that the notice issued under Section 4 of the Act shall be served by
delivering or tendering a copy of the notice or order, as the case may
be to the person for whom it is intended or to any adult member of his
family or by sending the notice by registered post with
acknowledgement due in a letter addressed to that person at his usual
or last known place of residence or business.
22. On perusal of the records of the Eviction Case No.
EO/MLG/2025, which are available before this court, it appears that no
report of the process server is endorsed on the copy of the notice
where initials of purported noticee appears regarding service of notice
upon him. As such, there appears to be no materials on record to
come to a conclusion that the notice issued under Section 4 of the
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 were
duly served on the petitioner No. 1 in the manner as prescribed under
Rule 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants)

Page No.# 15/18
Rules, 1971.
23. Moreover, it also appears on perusal of the observations
made by the learned District Judge, Kamrup (M) in paragraph No. 9 of
the impugned judgment that it assumed the receipt of notice issued to
the petitioner No. 1 under Section 4 of the Act on the basis that the
copy of order dated 31.07.2025 passed by the Estate Officer, which
was impugned in the appeal under Section 9 of the Act was issued at
the same address in which the notice under Section 4 was issued and
the copy of the order dated 31.07.2025 was ultimately received by the
petitioner No. 1.
24. This court is unable to agree with the observations made by
the court of learned District Judge in paragraph No. 9 of the impugned
judgment dated 31.07.2025, in as much as when the rules made under
the statute prescribes a particular manner of service of notice issued
under Section 4 of the Act, the manner prescribed therein shall have to
be adhered to for arriving at a finding regarding due service of notice
on such a noticee. When statute prescribes a particular manner of
service, there also remain no room for assuming due service in
absence of material to arrive at a conclusion that the manner
prescribed in the Rules was followed in effecting due service of notice
issued by Estate Officer.
25. It also appears from the record that in the notice issued by
the Estate Officer under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 to the petitioner No. 1, the address
of the petitioner is shown as railway plot No. 139 (cat-1) at KM7/2-1

Page No.# 16/18
(S/L) instead of mentioning his ordinary place of residence or usual
place of business as required under Rule 4 of the Public Premises
(Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Rules, 1971. There may not be
any wrong in the Estate Officer issuing notice under Section 4 of the
Act to an unauthorized occupant alleging that he is in unauthorized
occupation of the public premises described in the schedule to the
notice, however, such notice has to be issued to such person at his
ordinary place of residence or usual place of business as required under
Rule 4 of the 1971 Rules.
26. Moreover, since the petitioner No. 2 is also claiming to be
the joint owner of the building which is constructed over the plot of
land from where the petitioners are sought to be evicted, she is also
entitled to get notice under Section 4 of the Act in Eviction Case No.
EO/MLG/2025.
27. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this court is of
considered opinion that since the petitioners are claiming to be owner
of the land and building from where they are sought to be evicted, they
have the right to be heard before passing of any order of eviction by
the Estate Officer in respect of the said land. Since, denial of right to be
heard would be violative of the cardinal principles of natural justice,
same goes to the root of the case. The provisions contained in Rule 4
of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Rules,
1971 are framed only to ensure that this cardinal principle is not
violated before issuing an eviction notice to a person under the
provision of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act,

Page No.# 17/18
1971.
28. In view of discussions made and reasons stated in the
foregoing paragraphs of this judgment, this court is of considered
opinion that there are material on record to come to a finding of due
service of notice issued under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction
of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 in the manner as prescribed
under Rule 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized
Occupants) Rules, 1971 and as such the learned District Judge has
erred in assuming due service of notice issued under Section 4 of the
Act on the petitioner No. 1. As such, the impugned judgment dated
07.04.2026 of the Court of learned District Judge, Kamrup (M) in Misc.
Appeal 14/2025 as well as impugned order dated 31.07.2025 passed by
the Estate Officer, NF Railway, Maligaon in the Eviction Case No.
EO/MLG/2025 is liable to be set aside, which this court accordingly
does.
29. Accordingly, the Eviction Case No. EO/MLG/2025 is
remanded back to the Estate Officer, NF Railway, Maligaon to decide
the matter afresh after ensuring due service of notice on both the
petitioners in accordance with law.
30. Let the record of the appellate court be sent back to the
said court along with a copy of this judgment.
31. Let also the record of Eviction Case No. EO/MLG/2025 be
sent back to the office of the Estate Officer, NF Railway, Maligaon with
a copy of this judgment for compliance.

Page No.# 18/18
32. This appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
33. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
Naba
jyoti
Haloi
Digitally
signed by
Nabajyoti
Haloi
Date:
2026.09.03
01:21:25
-07'00'