Only those who enter into possession of Government land in accordance with the rules are entitled to be recognized in touzi possession of the land.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J. - Heard Shri A Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri BJ Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department as well as Shri G Pegu, learned State Counsel, Assam.

2. The case projected in the writ petition is that the petitioners are flood affected and had purchased certain plots of land at Village-Napara under Mouza-Pub-Barkhetri, Police StationMukalmua in the district of Nalbari, Assam covered by Dag No.1 from the holder and occupier by executing some Kacha Sale Deed and since then, they are in occupation over the said plots of land. The petitioners also claim to have paid land revenue which was collected by the Mouzadar of the concerned Mouza. However, vide the impugned orders dated 21.01.2020 and 11.11.2020, the petitioners were directed to vacate their respective lands as the same was Government land.

3. Shri Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that though the land in question is Government land, they are flood affected persons and are in possession of the same since long and has also been paying the land revenue. He accordingly submits that the eviction drive is not reasonable and rather, steps should be taken for settlement of the land in the names of the petitioners. By drawing the attention of this Court to the additional-affidavit filed on 25.11.2020 in WP(C) No.4563/2020, it is submitted that the petitioners have been discriminated inasmuch as similarly situated persons have not been served with such notice.

4. On the other hand, Shri Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel submits that when the land in question is Government land, the petitioners cannot claim as a matter of right for settlement. Further, the petitioners are only encroachers over Government land and the impugned action is absolutely in the larger interest of public. He further submits that the land revenue said to have been paid are not 'Khajna' but 'Touzi' and therefore, no right would vest upon the petitioners by such payment. As regards the point taken up in the additionalaffidavit, the learned counsel for the Revenue Department submits that Article 14 of the Constitution of India being a positive right, no case for discrimination can be made out by bringing on record other instances where action has not been taken.

5. Shri Pegu, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 and 4 has endorsed the submission of Shri Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel and submits that the writ petition is neither tenable on facts nor in law.

6. Having given anxious considerations on the respective cases projected by the parties, this Court is of the view that admittedly the land in question being a Government land, the impugned orders dated 21.01.2020 and 11.11.2020 for eviction cannot be faulted with. Payment of revenue as contended by the petitioners stands belied by a cursory glance of the receipts which have been annexed to the writ petitions which clearly indicate that the payment is under the head of 'Touzi', which is nothing but a fine for occupying the Government land and this position has been well settled by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Assam Vs. Radha Kanoo, (1996) 8 SCC 692. The relevant paragraph, being paragraph 5, is quoted hereinbelow:

"5. It is true, as pointed out by Shri Goswami that mauzadars have been given right to collect touzi of miscellaneous land revenue in the appropriate cash form prescribed in the instructions and that on collection the mauzadar is enjoined to deposit the collection so made in the manner prescribed. The question is: whether the persons who enter into possession otherwise than in accordance with Rule 16 would be recognised to be a person to have duly entered into possession of the government wasteland and thus entitled to be recognised in touzi possession of the land, even though they may have paid revenue to mauzadars? The mauzadar as an agent of the government cannot clothe himself with any higher right than i