Read Time: 05 minutes
Top Court was told the eviction Notice was issued to people who belonged to a certain religious community, and therefore was patently biased and discriminatory
Recently the Supreme Court of India has asked the affected people residing in the Jagiroad Railway Quarry siding area, to move the Gauhati High Court seeking relief against the eviction drive being carried out.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Pankaj Mithal while refusing permission to file a Special Leave Petition against an order which it held was correctly confined by the High Court to the petitioners before it, has granted liberty to the instant petitioners to approach the high court.
In the SLP, it was the petitioner's case that the interim order dated 24th June, 2024 passed on two Writ Petitions granting a blanket stay on the eviction process was applicable to them as well.
The top court differed and said it could not have been construed to extend benefit to persons who were not parties to the Writ Petitions.
"In such view of the matter, while closing the present proceedings, we observe that the petitioners shall be at liberty to file independent proceedings before the High Court challenging the ongoing eviction drive; and, if such an application is filed, the High Court shall proceed to decide the same, in accordance with law....", top court went on to order.
The SLP petitioners stated that they along with most of the other people who have been residing in the siding area were flood and erosion affected people who had not been rehabilitated by the government, as a result of which they moved into the aforesaid land which was an empty land earlier and later on they started working in the railway stone quarry that was set up there.
In June this year, the N.F. Railways issued an impugned notice demanding that the Petitioners vacate the land within seven days of issuance.
It is further the petitioner's case that the Notice was issued to only people who belonged to a certain religious community, and therefore was patently biased and discriminatory.
The impugned notice is stated to be arbitrary and issued in violation of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, without following due process.
Senior Advocate Sanjay R. Hegde, AOR Adeel Ahmed and Advocates Abdur Razzaque Bhuyan, Md. Sharuk Ali, Ankit Tiwar and Sana Parveen appeared before Court.
Case Title: SHILBHANGA (NO-KHULA GRANT) KARKAT BANDI BHUMI PUNAR SANSTHAPAN DABI SAMITI & ORS. vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Please Login or Register
