Top Headlines

Eviction-hit people can represent to government for rehabilitation: Gauhati High Court

A division bench of the Gauhati HC, comprising Chief Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia, dismissed a PIL (13/2023) with leave (permission) to the aggrieved person or persons due to eviction, if any, to represent them to the govt for rehabilitation under the applicable policy or notification.

Sentinel Digital Desk

 STAFF REPORTER

GUWAHATI: A division bench of the Gauhati High Court, comprising Chief Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia, dismissed a PIL (13/2023) with leave (permission) to the aggrieved person or persons due to eviction, if any, to represent them to the government for rehabilitation under the applicable policy or notification.

The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, styled to be a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), has been preferred by the petitioner, Harunal Rashid of Jamuguri in the Nagaon district, herein seeking a direction to the respondent authorities (the Assam Government) not to carry out eviction drives in certain villages and sar areas in Nagaon and Sonitpur districts of Assam without taking steps for rehabilitation of the persons residing therein.

“We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam, as well as Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned standing counsel, Forest Department, and have gone through the material available on record.”

“Another PIL (88/2021) filed by a person named Arup Kumar Mahanta with similar prayers relating to the eviction drive in the Lumding Reserve Forest was disposed of by this Court, observing that the eviction drive had already been completed. However, the unauthorized occupants of the Reserve Forest who had been evicted were given liberty to have their prayer for rehabilitation considered. In the present case, too, there is no dispute that the eviction drive was completed long ago. There is also no dispute that the areas in question were declared as a Reserve Forest.

“It may further be mentioned that the petitioner has not specified either by averments or by documentary evidence as to the number or identity of the persons if any, who have been adversely affected by the impugned action of eviction. Thus, all that can be directed in the existing facts and circumstances is to leave the aggrieved person/persons, if any, to represent to the government for rehabilitation under the applicable policy or notification. Thus, the instant PIL is disposed of in the above terms.”

Also Watch: