Full Judgment
R.K. Merathia, J.
1. Mr. Sunil Kumar Sinha, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that petitioner has challenged the notice dated 10.6.2008 (Annexure 2) issued to the petitioner for removing alleged encroachment from the Railway land to the extent of 37' x 77'. He further submitted that the land in question belonged to the petitioner as per Khatiyan (Annexure 1) and, therefore, in view of the bona fide dispute, the Railway should have filed a suit.
2. Mr. R.N. Roy, appearing for the respondents-Railways, on the other hand, submitted that Eviction Case No. E.L./140/BRKA/87 was started against the father of the petitioner in which order was passed by the Estate Officer (respondent No. 3) on 17.7.1989 for eviction from the land described in the schedule of the order measuring 1500 square feet being C.S. Plot No. 629, Mouza Barkakana, Khatiyan No. 15, as per the boundary given in the order. He further submitted that the land was allotted to Kendriya Vidyalaya and when the boundary of the school was going to be constructed, it was found that the petitioner has not obeyed/vacated the said land and, therefore, a notice dated 10.6.2008 was issued, as petitioner was bound by the order passed against his father. He further submitted that the Khatiyan relied by the petitioner shows Khata No. 14, whereas, the said order was passed with regard to Khata No. 15 and, therefore, it cannot be said that there is bona fide dispute with regard to right, title, interest and possession between the parties.
3. In reply, Mr. Sinha submitted that the said order was passed against his father who died on 31.1.1989 and, moreover, the order was with respect to 1500 sq. ft, whereas by the notice dated 10.6.2008 the petitioner was directed to vacate 37 ft x 77ft which comes to about 2849 sq. ft.
4. It appears that the father of the petitioner appeared in the said proceedings but did not produce any paper regarding the land in question, inspite of several opportunities, and ultimately, the case was heard on 19.12.1988 ex parte. However, the order was passed on 17.7.1989. Therefore, it cannot be said that the said order was passed against the dead person.
5. However, there is no explanation by the respondents as to why they did not get the lands vacated as per the said order dated 17.7.1989, within twelve years, in view of Article 136 of the Limitation Act. Moreover it appears that the said order relates to 1500 sq.ft as described in the order, whereas the notice dated 10.6.2008 relates to 37 ft. x 77 ft which comes to 2849 sq. ft.
6. In the circumstances, the impugned notice dated 10.6.2008 is quashed. However, this order will not stand in the way of the respondents if they want to initiate a fresh proceeding against the petitioner under the Public Premises Act, and taking appropriate action in accordance with law, If any notice is issued to the petitioner, he will accept the same and will cooperate in early disposal of the proceedings, failing which, ex parte order may be passed against him.
7. With these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. However, no costs.