D.N. Baruah,J-These two writ petitions challenge the orders passed by the Commissioner of Lower Assam Division setting aside the settlement of land, culminating in grant of periodic patta in exercise of powers under Rule 26 of the Rules framed under Assam Land and Revenue Regulations,

2. Petitioners urged before a Division Bench of this Court that once a periodic patta is issued in pursuance of an order of settlement, power under Rule 26 cannot be exercised. In support of the contention reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Sona Mura vs. Charthey Teron, AIR 1951 Assam 41, and a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in State of Assam vs. Saifat Ali, AIR 1967 Assam & Nagaland 3. The contesting respondents, on the other hand canvassed the correctness of the decisions. Both these Civil Rules have been referred to Full Bench on account of importance of the question involved.

3. The facts of both Civil Rules are similar. These may be stated as follows : On 22.2.58, Sub Divisional Officer, Barpeta, settled 18 bighas of land in favour of late Damabrudhar Deka, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners in Civil Rule No. 1117 of 1986 and 18 bighas of land in favour of Jibon Chandra Deka, petitioner in Civil Rule No. 1204 of 1986 and 5 bighas of hind in favour of Kantiram Deka. Annexure I is the order of settlement. After the order of settlement, annual pattas ware issued in their favour. Possession of land had also been delivered to them. After getting possession, petitioners improved the land and made it fit for 'Bow' (a type of paddy) cultivation and converted a part of land into fishery, Thereafter, they prayed for conversion of annual patta to periodic putta. Prayer for conversion was allowed and the petitioners as well as Kantiram Deka were directed to pay premium for conversion. Accordingly, premia for conversion were paid. After conversion of annual patta into a periodic patta, some time in 1961 the records of rights were corrected. Thereafter they invested more money for further improvement of the land settled with them.

In 1964 the Sub Divisional Officer, Barpeta issued notice to the petitioners and Kantiram Deka to show cause as to why the land should not be made 'sarkari'. On receipt of the notice, the petitioners showed cause by filing obje­ctions. In spite of their objections, the Sub Divisional Officer recommended to the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup cancellation of the periodic patta already issued to the petitioners and Kantiram Deka and also for making the land Village Grazing Reserve. This was done without giving any opportunity of hearing. This was, according to the petitioners, done at the instance of some villagers of Jalkhana.

The petitioners having failed to get relief, filed representation before the Commissioner, lower Assam Division, Guwahati, stating the facts and praying inter alia not to cancel the periodic patta already issued to them. The Commissioner, Lower Assam Division looked into the matter and considered the legality of the proposed cancellation of the periodic patta and conversion of the land into a VGR and was satisfied that no VGR should be constituted in a patta land as proposed by the Deputy Commissioner, inasmuch as, it would not be in conformity with Rules 25 and 26 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation. Accordingly, the Commissioner, Lower Assam Division, refused to convert the said patta land belonging to the petitioners to a VGR. Subsequently, some interested persons, namely, villagers of Jalkhana, continued to pursue the matter. The Commissioner of Lower Assam Division again took up the matter for consideration. On coming to know about this, the petitioners an 1 other pattadars filed petitions before the Commissioner stating the facts. The Commissioner, Lower Assam Division by order dated 21.11.83 by Annexure 6 in Civil Rule No.1117 of 1186 and Annexure 7 in Civil Rule No 1204 of 1986cancelled the pattas given to the petitioners. The petitioners Said appeal before the St

Click Here to Read the rest of this document