This writ appeal arises of judgment and order dated 15.5.97 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Rule No.2691 of 1992, thereby dismissing the writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner appellant is a registered society, the society filed a writ petition praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus and quashing the acquisition of land acquired by the respondent State vide order dated 24.3.76 filed as Annexure 1 to the petition. It is reproduced herein not only as ready reference, but also for the purpose that it gives the description of the land as well as disclosed the reasons for acquisition:

"No.RRT. 186/76/14- Whereas the land specified in the schedule below is in excess of the limit fixed under section 4 of the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1956 (Assam Act I of 1967 as amended)

And whereas the excess land is required in public purpose. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 8 of the act, the r Governor of Assam is pleased to acquire the said excess land and the acquisition.

Schedule

Sl.No. Owner Tenant Mouza Village Patta No. Dag No.

1. Shri Hitendra Mohan Das Chatla Srikona grant 133 79

5 other S/o Ramani Das. 99 years

The learned Single Judge while dismissing the petition has observed that it would to have been thrown out on the short ground of delay and laches. The acquisition was made in the year 1976 and the petition was filed in the year 1992, almost after 16 years. But instead of doing so, the learned Single Judge having considered the merit of the case and dismissed the same on merit as well, Indisputably the land in question originally belonged to a tea estate covered under Srikona Grant at Pargana Chatla Haor in the district Cachar. The writ petitioner's claim was that the society which comprises 250 members had purchased 3415 bighas of land vide 3 registered sale deeds dated 14.6.69, 23.6.69 and 3.7.69. The learned Single Judge has found it as a fact that these sales were not accepted by the State Govt as genuine and bonafide sales in the proceedings initiated under provisions of Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1956.

3. Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. BK Das assisted by Mr. PK Roy for the appellants and Mr. HN Sarma, learned Govt Advocate for the respondents State.

4. It was contened on behalf of the appellants that the sale in favour of the society being prior in point of tune was a valid one, the Amendment Act of 1970 came into force from 1.4.1970, therefore, the purchase by the society shall be deemed to be valid. Learned counsel also invited our attention to the provisions of law particularly explaining the expression "purpose ancillary thereto". The finding , recorded by the learned Single Judge is to the effect that lands acquired were not utilised by the tea estate for special cultivation or for purpose ancillary thereto, thus it was not exempted from the operation of the Act. The exemption applies only to those area which were under actual cultivation of tea or used by the gardens for purpose ancillary thereto. Lands lying vacant, were liable to be acquired and could not be exempted. The interpretation sought to be put by the learned counsel on sub-section (6) of section 4 of the Act, apart from being a self serving interpretation cannot operate in vacuum of facts, such contentious issue as raised, in the petition cannot be decided without recording evidence as rightly pointed out by the learned Govt Advocate Mr. Sarma that such disputes involving question of title and possession and also utilisation of land in a particular manner, are subject matter of regular civil suits, extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is not the proper course. (See State of Rajasthan vs. Bhawani Singh, AIR 1992 SC 1018; Smti Parvatibai Subhanrao Nalawade vs. Anwarali Hussanali Makani, AIR 1992 SC 1780; Mohan Pandey vs. Usha Rani Rajgaria, (1992) 4 SCC 61).

5. Really speaking it is a settled proposition that invoking of wri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document