Heard Mr. B. Chakraborty, the learned counsel representing the petitioners in both the cases. Also heard Ms. B. Dutta, the learned Sr. advocate appearing for the State authorities. Although notice was served on the 4th respondent, she has failed to enter her appearance.

2. The common issue in both the cases is whether the annual patta land of the petitioners could be converted to Sarkari category, on the transfer of the land by the pattadars in favour of the 4th respondent. In the WP(C) No.4343/2011 the concerned land measures 1 bigha 3 kathas covered by Dag No.660, Annual Patta No.43 under Kissam Pub Bhalukmari Mouza, Lanka Circle. In the WP(C) No.4309/2011, the annual patta land measures 6 bighas covered by Dag No.674, Annual Patta No.9 under Kissam Pub Bhalukmari Mouza, Lanka Circle. Both lands were transferred by the petitioners to Smt. Pranita Devi (respondent No.4).

3. Following the transfer of the annual patta land, the Circle Officer, Lanka registered the NR Case No.25/08-09 and the NR Case No.26/08-09 for cancelling the annual patta as the A.P. lands were transferred illegally and a proposal was put up to convert the annual patta land to Sarkari category. These proposals of the Circle Officer was approved on 12.07.2010 by the Addl. D.C.(Rev.) in the NRK (NR) Case No.29/10-11 and the NRK (NR) Case No.30/10-11 and direction was issued to categorize the land as Sarkari and correction of the land records was ordered.

4. The aggrieved settlement holder challenged the above decision under Section 151 of the Assam Land Revenue Regulation, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as the “Land Revenue Regulation”) and the Case No.16 RA(N)/2011 and the Case No.17 RA(N)/2011 was then registered. In their appeals, the patta holders contended that they never transferred the annual patta lands to a 3rd party and continue to retain possession of the concerned land. Therefore, it was contended that due enquiry was not made by the revenue authorities and cancellation of patta was unjustly ordered, without affording any hearing to the affected party.

5. However, through the impugned judgment(s) rendered on 24.02.2011, the Revenue Board dismissed both appeals of the patta holders only on the basis that annual patta land cannot be transferred. But the pleaded case of the appellants that they never transferred the land to a 3rd party and that they were denied any opportunity of hearing, were not taken into account by the Revenue Board, in dismissing the appeals.

6. Assailing the legality of the order, Mr. B. Chakraborty, the learned counsel submits that the status of an annual patta holder is that of a settlement holder and if any order to his prejudice is to be made, notice and hearing must be afforded to the affected party as is mandated by Rule 116 of the Settlement Rules framed under the Land Revenue Regulation. The petitioners contend that an annual patta, until cancelled, confers good title upon the person to whom the patta is issued and such person is entitled to possess the land, to the exclusion of all others including the trespasser. Mr. Chakraborty relies on Ajgarh Ali Vs. Abdul Siddique reported in 1999(1) GLT 642 to contend that the right of the annual patta holder cannot be disturbed without issuing non-revewal notice and when valid annual patta subsists, further settlement cannot be made in favour of a 3rd party, without cancellation of the annual patta by issuing the non-renewal notice.

7. The Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulation’) prescribes the rights of the settlement holders and distinguishes such right from that of the land holder. The settlement holder, under Section 11 of the Regulation, is declared to have no rights in the land held by him beyond such as are expressed in his settlement lease. Section 11 being relevant, is extracted here-in-below:

“A settlement-holder who is not a land-holder, shall have no rights in the land held by him beyond such as are expressed in his sett