The settlement of ceiling surplus land must be done in accordance with the provisions of the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1956, giving preference to landless cultivators and other categories of persons mentioned in section 17(3).

By this common judgment and order we propose to dispose of two writ petitions registered as Civil Rule Nos. 724 of 1981 and 147 of 1984 as the points involve are common and both the cases were heard analogously.

2. The writ petitioners are two companies owning tea gardens. The dispute in Civil Rule No. 724 of 1981 is in respect of ceiling surplus land of Bokel Tea Estate owned by the company and in other Civil Rule the dispute is also in connection with ceiling surplus land of Bazaloni Tea Estate. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Dibrugarh in respective ceiling cases determined an area of 2604. 19 acres as surplus land in respect of Bokel Tea Estate and an area of 7680 Bighas O Kathas 16 Lechas as excess land in respect of Bazaloni Tea Estate under the provisions of Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. 1956, for short, 'the Act'. The review petition before the State Government was also rejected. Thereafter by letter dated 27th October, 1977 (Aunexure-1 to the petition) the Revenue Department, Government of Assam, directed the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh to select, 'a suitable compact block of 600 acres for settlement with the Mothola Tea Estate so as to facilitate the rehabilitation of the large body of displaced working labourers of the said Tea Estate'. This area was to be selected from the ceiling surplus land of Bokel Tea Estate, The land in dispute was accordingly selected and settled with Mothola Tea Estate and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are the owners of the said Tea Estate. In respect of Bazaloni Tea Estate by letter dated 28.12.83 the Government allotted 40 acres of land out of the ceiling surplus land of the said Tea Estate to Mothola Tea Estate. Being aggrieved the above two writ petitions have been filed.

3. One counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the official respondents by the Additional Deputy Commissioner in Civil Rule No. 147 of 1984 wherein it has been stated that Government felt seriously concerned about rehabilitation of 600 six hundred) labourers and other workers of M/s Mothola Tea Estate which was 'virtually eaten up by the severe erosion of river Brahmaputra' and accordingly the settlement was done to save the workers from throwing out of employment. It has also been stated that as the land was lying fallow it did not cause any inconvenience to the writ petitioners, It has been pleaded that under the provisions of the Act Government has exclusive right to dispose of the ceiling surplus land. In the counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the Mothola Tea Estate in this Civil Rule the allegation of the petitioner that the petitioner was compelled to surrender the excess land has been denied and it has been reiterated that considerable areas of Mothola Tea Estate which was originally located in the outskirts of Dibrugarh town was eroded by the river Brahmaputra and the owner of Tea Estate faced the grim prospect of complete closure and the unpleasant task of retre­nchment of huge labour force. According to the respondents the writ petitioners ceased to have any right, title and interest over the excess land which was voluntarily surrendered and as such cannot raise and question of hardship and loss on account of allotment of the land to a third party. In respect of the writ petitioners that allotment of land to Bazaloni Tea Estate fir establishing a new Tea Es ate within the Tea Estate of the writ petitioners would cause serious law and order problem have been denied and it has been stated that in Tea Estates owned by different individuals and companies are always contiguous to each other.

4. In Civil Rule No. 724 of 1981 a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of all the official respondents by the Under Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department and the same stand has been taken, namely the ceiling surplus lands are at the disposal of the Government, for settlement and the outgoing owner has no option in the matter of such disposal. The private respondent, na