Gauhati HC Dismisses Compensation Claim for 2017 Building Demolition, Finds No Constitutional Tort Made Out

The Gauhati High Court held that eviction from a government reserve land encroachment does not constitute a constitutional tort, and directed petitioners to civil court for any remaining damages claim.

The Gauhati High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by the legal heirs of the late Indrasan Prasad Choudhury seeking compensation for the partial demolition of a two-storey RCC building in Lanka, District Hojai, carried out on 19 February 2017 by officials of the Deputy Commissioner's office, Lanka Municipal Board, Lanka Revenue Circle, and Lanka Police Station. Justice Devashis Baruah, sitting singly, held that the facts do not make out a case of constitutional tort and that the question of compensation cannot therefore arise in writ jurisdiction. The court also held that the right to claim compensation for such personal loss does not survive the original petitioner's death so as to be pursued by his legal heirs in these proceedings.

The Dispute Before the Court

Indrasan Prasad Choudhury claimed to be the absolute owner of 2 Kathas 7 Lechas of land in Lanka Town, covered by Patta Nos. 53 and 97 and Dag Nos. 1049 and 1636, Mouza Lanka, Lanka Revenue Circle, District Hojai. He had constructed a two-storey RCC building on that land.

On the morning of 19 February 2017, Respondent Nos. 5, 6, and 7—the Chairman of Lanka Municipal Board, the Circle Officer of Lanka Revenue Circle, and the Officer-in-Charge of Lanka Police Station respectively—arrived at the building with armed police and demolished a portion of it. Photographs were placed on record by the petitioner.

Aggrieved, Indrasan Prasad Choudhury filed WP(C)/1192/2017 before the Gauhati High Court seeking compensation for assault on his life and property. He died during the pendency of the petition and was substituted by his legal heirs: his widow Kalawati Devi and five sons.

What the Respondents Said

The Deputy Commissioner (Respondent No. 2) filed an affidavit-in-opposition on 26 July 2017 disputing the petitioner's claimed land extent. According to the respondents, the petitioner's ownership was limited to 2 Kathas 2 Lechas, not 2 Kathas 7 Lechas as claimed. The respondents relied on letters dated 8 May 2017 and 19 June 2017 to support this position.

The affidavit further disclosed that a portion of the petitioner's building was standing over Government Dag No. 1038, which is reserved as “Gobat” — a category of government reserve land. Eviction proceedings had been initiated in exercise of powers under the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. The Lanka Municipal Board had also issued a General Notice on 13 January 2017. Critically, the respondents maintained that no portion of the petitioner's building standing on his own land was demolished.

The Officer-in-Charge of Lanka Police Station (Respondent No. 7) filed his affidavit-in-opposition on 30 November 2017 stating that he was present at the site pursuant to directions from the Superintendent of Police, Hojai, leading a team comprising CRPF, AP Battalion, and local police to maintain law and order during the eviction on 19 February 2017. He also stated that an Ejahar was filed against the original petitioner and three others for illegally obstructing government servants and pelting stones, registered as Lanka P.S. Case No. 109/07.

Petitioners' Failure to Respond

Both affidavits-in-opposition were filed in 2017. Neither the original petitioner nor the substituted petitioners filed any affidavit-in-reply. When the matter came up before the court on 24 July 2026, Justice Baruah granted a final opportunity to the substituted petitioners to file a reply. No affidavit-in-reply was forthcoming even thereafter.

The absence of any denial of the respondents' averments—particularly that the demolished portion stood on Government Dag No. 1038—proved significant to the court's reasoning.

The Court's Reasoning on Constitutional Tort

Justice Baruah framed the central question as whether the action of the respondent authorities constituted a constitutional tort warranting an award of compensation in writ jurisdiction.

The court found that the petitioner's claim to own 2 Kathas 7 Lechas had been specifically denied and rebutted by the respondents with documentary support. More importantly, the allegation that the petitioner's building encroached upon Government Dag No. 1038, reserved as Gobat, was never denied by the petitioner. Given that uncontested encroachment, the court held it could not conclude that the respondents had violated the original petitioner's constitutional rights.

The court then addressed a separate and independent ground. Even assuming some actionable wrong, the right to claim compensation for constitutional tort was personal to the original petitioner. Upon his death, that right did not survive in favour of the substituted petitioners. The legal heirs could step into the shoes of the original petitioner for procedural purposes, but the substantive personal right to sue for such compensation did not transmit to them.

A third consideration reinforced the dismissal. Whether any part of the petitioner's own building was demolished, and to what extent, are questions of fact requiring evidence. The court held that such questions of fact and quantum of damages can only be resolved before a court of civil jurisdiction where evidence can be led, not in writ proceedings.

Liberty to Approach Civil Court

While dismissing the writ petition, the court took care to preserve whatever civil remedy the petitioners may have. Justice Baruah directed that the dismissal of the writ petition shall not preclude the petitioners from approaching a competent court of civil jurisdiction to claim compensation for any demolition of their building that stood within their own land.

To ensure that the long pendency of the writ petition does not extinguish a civil claim on limitation grounds, the court directed that the period from 28 February 2017 until the date of the order be excluded when computing the limitation period for any such suit.

Order

WP(C)/1192/2017 stands dismissed. The court held that no case of constitutional tort is made out and the question of directing the respondent authorities to pay compensation does not arise. The petitioners retain the liberty to file a suit before a civil court for compensation in respect of any portion of the demolition that affected their own land, with the benefit of exclusion of the period from 28 February 2017 to the date of the order for limitation purposes.