Gauhati High Court Rules Against Continued Occupation of Official Quarter for Public Redevelopment
The Gauhati High Court has unequivocally stated that a government employee possesses no inherent right to claim continued occupation of an official quarter when the government has made a policy decision to dismantle the premises for redevelopment in the larger public interest. Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair, presiding over the matter, observed that such a policy decision, aimed at constructing multi-storied buildings, supersedes individual claims to continued occupancy.
The ruling came in a writ petition filed by Mary Megu, a Staff Artist in the Department of Art and Culture, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. Ms. Megu challenged an eviction order issued by the Estate Officer, Itanagar Capital Complex, Naharlagun, which directed her to vacate her government quarter within 14 days. Failure to comply would result in her eviction from the premises.
Ms. Megu was appointed in 1996 and subsequently allotted the government quarter in 1998. The Commissioner, Urban Affairs, had communicated a decision to demolish identified quarters, including the one occupied by the petitioner, to facilitate the construction of multi-storied flats. This initiative was intended to provide accommodation to a greater number of government employees who were currently without official housing.
Under the government's policy, employees occupying the identified quarters were to be offered alternative temporary accommodation by the executing agency or were entitled to avail House Rent Allowance (HRA) until the new multi-storied flats were completed. Upon completion, these employees were to be accommodated in the new flats in the first allocation slot. Despite these provisions, Ms. Megu sought permission to retain her quarter until her retirement from service. Her representation was subsequently rejected by the Director, Housing. Following this, a notice was issued under Section 4 of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 2003, requiring her to vacate the quarter.
The petitioner contended that she had been in peaceful occupation of the quarter and that requiring her to vacate would cause significant inconvenience to her and her family. She also highlighted that occupants of adjacent quarters had not been directed to vacate their premises. Furthermore, Ms. Megu submitted that an appeal against the eviction order was pending before the Deputy Commissioner.
In response, the State argued that the decision to construct multi-storied residential flats was a policy decision taken to accommodate more government employees who lacked official housing. The State maintained that the petitioner had no right to seek continued retention of the quarter, given the policy decision made by the competent authorities.
The High Court, upon reviewing the available materials, noted that the respondent authorities in the Department of Urban Affairs had indeed arrived at a policy decision to dismantle the old quarters at D-Sector, Naharlagun, and proceed with the construction of a multi-storied building. The Court observed that the notification detailing this policy explicitly stipulated that government employees whose quarters were identified for demolition would be provided with alternative temporary accommodation by the executing agency or could opt for HRA until the new flats were constructed.
Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair further noted that Ms. Megu had previously approached the High Court regarding this matter, and the observations and directions issued in those earlier proceedings, specifically an order dated 11.03.2026, had attained finality. The Court held that these prior directions required the petitioner to vacate the said quarter.
The High Court concluded that the decision to construct a multi-storied building after dismantling the existing quarters was a policy decision taken in the larger public interest. The Court found that this decision aimed to benefit a greater number of government employees who were without government accommodation. Moreover, the Court determined that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner, given the options provided under the policy decision, which included either alternative accommodation or HRA. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.