The Gauhati High Court has held that a government employee has no right to claim continued occupation of an official quarter where the government has taken a policy decision to dismantle the premises and redevelop it by constructing a multi-storied building in the larger public interest.

Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair observed, “This Court further notices that the petitioner has no right to claim continued occupation of the quarter in question in view of the policy decision arrived at in the matter, pursuant to which the petitioner has been required to vacate the same.”

The observation came in a writ petition filed by one Mary Megu, challenging the order passed by the Estate Officer, Itanagar Capital Complex, Naharlagun, directing her to vacate a government Quarter within 14 days, failing which she would be evicted from the premises.

The petitioner was appointed as a Staff Artist in the Department of Art and Culture, Government of Arunachal Pradesh in 1996 and was allotted the government quarter in 1998. The Commissioner, Urban Affairs, intimated the decision arrived at for demolition of the identified quarters for construction of multi-storied flats. The quarter occupied by the petitioner was also identified for demolition. The government employees occupying such quarters were to be provided alternative temporary accommodation by the executing agency or were required to avail HRA till the multi-storied flats were constructed, and were to be accommodated in the new flats in the first slot on completion.

The petitioner sought permission to retain the quarter till her retirement from service. Her representation was subsequently rejected by the Director, Housing. Thereafter, a notice under Section 4 of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 2003 was issued and the Estate Officer required her to vacate the quarter. The petitioner projected that her appeal against the said order was pending before the Deputy Commissioner.

The petitioner submitted that she had been in peaceful occupation of the quarter and that requiring her to vacate would cause great inconvenience to her and her family. She also projected that occupants of the adjacent quarters had not been required to vacate.

The State submitted that a decision had been taken to construct multi-storied residential flats in the premises with a view to provide accommodation to more government employees who were presently without government accommodation, and that the petitioner had no right to seek continued retention of the quarter in view of the policy decision taken by the competent authorities.

The High Court noted that the respondent authorities in the Department of Urban Affairs had arrived at a policy decision to dismantle the old quarters at D-Sector, Naharlagun and construct a multi-storied building therein.

The Court noted, “On a perusal of the said notification, this Court finds that the Government employees, whose names and quarter numbers were incorporated therein, for the purpose of dismantling, were to be provided with alternative temporary accommodation by the executing agency or were required to avail of House Rent Allowance (HRA), till the flats are constructed.”

The Court further noted that the petitioner had earlier approached the High Court and that the observations and directions passed in those proceedings had attained finality.

“The said observations and directions passed by this Court vide order dated 11.03.2026, in the considered view of this Court, have attained its finality and the petitioner was required to vacate the said quarter.”

The Court found that the decision to construct a multi-storied building after dismantling the quarters was a policy decision taken in the larger public interest.

“This Court, from the materials available on record, finds that the decision of the respondent authorities to construct a multi-storied building after dismantling the quarters occupied by the petitioner and other persons in the said premises is a policy decision taken in the larger public interest to benefit a larger number of Government employees who are without Government accommodation,” the Court noted.

It further found that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner in view of the options provided under the policy decision.

It said, “This Court finds that, in terms of the stipulations contained in the policy decision, as incorporated in the notification dated 12.01.2026, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner inasmuch as she has been provided with an option either to avail of alternative accommodation and/or to avail HRA as per her entitlement.”

The Court accordingly held, “Accordingly, this Court holds that the petitioner is bound to vacate the said quarter and permit the respondent authorities to implement the policy decision already arrived at in the matter to dismantle the quarter occupied by her and construct a multi-storied building, wherein, she would also be provided accommodation in the first phase of allotment.”

The petitioner was directed to vacate the quarter on or before August 20, 2026, with no further time to be granted.

“In the event the petitioner fails to vacate the said quarter within the stipulated period, the respondent authorities shall be at liberty to evict the petitioner, therefrom, by using such force as may be necessary, without issuing any further notice to the petitioner,” the Court concluded and the writ petition was accordingly disposed of.

Case No.: WP(C)/367/2026

Case Title: Ms Mary Megu v. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors.

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 129

Click Here To Read Judgement