Back
2019 Supreme(Gau) 1249
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
UJJAL BHUYAN, J.
Joynal Abedin (Md.) and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Assam and Ors. – Respondents
W.P. (C) Nos. 2105 of 2010, 2203 and 5306 of 2013
Decided On : 27-09-2019
For the Appellant :P.K. Roy Choudhury, B.C. Das and D.N. Bhattacharyya, Advocates
For the Respondents:D. Mazumdar, Addl. AG, J. Kakoti, Advocate and P.S. Deka, GA
Headnote:
Constitution of India – Article 14 – Settlement Rules – Rules 1, 83 to 96 – Cancellation of allotment of VGR – In WP(C) prayer made is for a direction to the respondents for settlement of land under occupation of the petitioner forming part of the Village Grazing Reserve (VGR) whereas in the latter two cases, challenge made by the petitioner is to the cancellation of allotment of VGR in favour of Markazul Maarif – Held, It is evident that the laid down procedure was not followed while making allotment of village grazing land to the petitioner – In such circumstances question of any promissory estoppel working against the State or any legitimate expectation of the petitioner does not arise. – But there is a larger issue to this. – In the case of Akhil Bharatiya Upbhokta Congress Vs. State of MP, (2011) 5 SCC 29, Supreme Court held that there cannot be any policy of allotting land on the basis of applications made by individuals dehors an invitation or advertisement by the State. – By entertaining applications made by individuals for allotment of land, the State cannot exclude other eligible persons from lodging competing claims. Any allotment of land by the State dehors such a procedure would be liable to be treated as arbitrary, discriminatory and an act of favouritism violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. – Court is of the considered opinion that all the three writ petitions are devoid of merit. – Petitions dismissed.
ORDER :
Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
1. This order will dispose of W.P.(C) No. 2105/2010, W.P.(C) No. 2203/2013 and WP(C) No. 5306/2013.
2. Heard Mr. P.K. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 2105/2010; and Mr. B.C. Das, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Mr. D.N. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) Nos. 2203 and 5306/2013, petitioner being common in both the proceedings. Also heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam assisted by Ms. J. Kakoti, learned counsel for the State respondents as well as Mr. P.S. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department, Government of Assam.
3. In WP(C) No. 2105/2010, Md. Joynal Abedin is the petitioner whereas in the other two writ petitions, Markazul Ma'arif is the petitioner.
4. In WP(C) No. 2105/2010, prayer made is for a direction to the respondents for settlement of land under occupation of the petitioner forming part of the Village Grazing Reserve (VGR) whereas in the latter two cases, challenge made by the petitioner is to the cancellation of allotment of VGR in favour of Markazul Ma'arif
5. Facts of individual cases may be briefly highlighted.
5.1. WP(C) No. 2105/2010
(i) According to the petitioner, he is a poor landless person living below the poverty line. He is somehow managing his family comprising of 13 members by earning daily wages.
(ii) There is a grazing reserve called Padum Pukhuri Grazing Reserve under Padum Pukhuri Kissam within Kapasbari Mouza in Hojai Sub-Division of Nagaon district covered by Dag Nos. 247 and 216. There is about 400 bighas of land within this reserve which was so reserved about 50 years back for the benefit of the people of the nearby villages.
(iii) About 25 numbers of families were given settlement in one corner of the said grazing reserve by the Government. Petitioner has stated that he has been residing over a small are a measuring about 3 bighas of the said grazing reserve since the last 13 years.
(iv) In January, 2009, petitioner submitted a representation before the Chief Minister, Assam seeking his intervention in settlement of the said land. In this connection, Revenue Department, Government of Assam on 8.5.2009 directed the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon to cause an enquiry and to submit report.
(v) While settlement of the land in favour of the petitioner was yet to be finalized, petitioner apprehended threat to dispossession at the instance of respondent No. 4 which is the petitioner in WP(C) Nos. 2203 and 5306/2013.
(vi) With the above grievance, present writ petition came to be filed seeking the relief as indicated above.
(vii) This Court by order dated 31.3.2010 had issued notice. Thereafter, on 9.4.2010, this Court passed an interim order directing the respondents to maintain status quo as regards possession of the land in question as on 09.04.2010.
(viii) A common affidavit has been filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Stand taken in the affidavit is that there is no record of the petitioner being a landless person; rather petitioner was found to be an occupier of about 3 bighas of land out of total 150 bighas of land allotted to Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Hojai. There is also no record of the petitioner seeking settlement of land occupied by him. Threat of dispossession expressed by the petitioner has been denied. It is also stated that petitioner was not eligible for allotment of land out of grazing reserve as per land policy of Government of Assam.
(ix) Respondent No. 4 has also filed a counter affidavit. Stand taken is that a group of persons had initially filed PIL No. 29/2010 questioning settlement of land in favour of Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Hojai. However, the PIL was withdrawn and accordingly it was dismissed on withdrawal vide order dated 13.06.2011. Regarding claim of the petitioner, it is contended that name of the petitioner was not found in the voter's list prior to the general elections held in the year 1985 and his nationality is also doubtful. Regarding allotment of land to the Krishi V
