Municipal authorities cannot issue eviction notices for land outside their statutory jurisdiction.

The petitioner challenged a notice dated 16.05.2024 issued by the Executive Officer of the Lakhipur Municipal Board directing him and two others to remove their shop/godown within two days, failing which demolition was threatened.

The petitioner claimed possession of land in Manaspara Reserve, allegedly purchased through an unregistered sale deed dated 15.10.2011, and contended that the Lakhipur Municipal Board lacked territorial jurisdiction because Manaspara Reserve did not fall within the Municipal Board’s limits.

The Municipal Board asserted that the disputed structure formed part of Folimari Market, which had been administered by it since 1993, and that the petitioner was an unauthorised occupant of Government land.

Pursuant to the Court’s direction, the Circle Officer reported that the petitioner’s structure actually fell within Dag No. 294, Government land recorded in the name of Folimari High School, and that Dag Nos. 287, 287/2 and 294 were outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Lakhipur Municipal Board.

1. Whether the Lakhipur Municipal Board had territorial jurisdiction to issue the notice dated 16.05.2024 concerning the petitioner’s shop/structure situated in Dag No. 294.

2. Whether the impugned notice, issued by the Executive Officer of the Lakhipur Municipal Board, was liable to be quashed for having been issued without jurisdiction.

The Court referred to the statutory constitution and territorial boundaries of the Lakhipur Town Committee under Section 334(1) of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956, and to the subsequent conversion of the Town Committee into a Municipal Board under Section 4 of the Assam Municipal (Amendment) Act, 2017.

The governing principle applied was that a municipal authority can exercise coercive or regulatory powers only in respect of land falling within its legally notified territorial jurisdiction; any notice issued beyond that jurisdiction is without authority and liable to be quashed.

The Court considered the competing claims regarding the location of the petitioner’s structure and relied on the Circle Officer’s field verification and revenue records.

Although the petitioner claimed possession of Dag No. 287/2, the official verification established that the structure was actually situated in Dag No. 294, which was Government land recorded in the name of Folimari High School.

Crucially, the Circle Officer confirmed that none of Dag Nos. 287, 287/2 or 294 fell within the Lakhipur Municipal Board’s jurisdiction.

Since the Municipal Board lacked territorial authority over the disputed land, the Executive Officer could not validly issue the threatened demolition notice, irrespective of whether the petitioner was an owner or merely an unauthorised possessor.

The notice was therefore held to be beyond jurisdiction.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, and the impugned notice was set aside and quashed.

No order as to costs was made.