IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Manish Choudhury, J.
Sanjay Gogoi and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State of Assam and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) Nos. 7516 and 7498 of 2019
Decided On : 30-11-2021
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Settlement Rules - Rule 2 [f], 15 , 16, 17, 17A, 18, 18[1], 18[2] – Power of High Court to issue Certain Writs - Enjoined that no person shall have any right to settlement merely because he is in occupation of land not included in any lease granted - Effect that lease - Enter into possession of waste land in any area until a lease has been issued - Offered accepts -Aat any time on application or of his own motion – Ejectment – Held, The petitioners have not been able to show any provision either in the Land Policy, 1989 or the Land Policy, 2019 which permits settlement of land which are reserved for public purpose as per the revenue records, in favour of any individual applicant for homestead purpose. At the cost of repetition, it is iterated that the plots of land herein are reserved Railway and Public Works Department, meaning thereby, they are reserved and meant for common use of the public - The Land Policy, 2019 in Clause 1.14, like Rule 15 of the Settlement Rules, has laid down that mere possession by way of encroachment shall not be a criteria for entitlement to get allotment/settlement of Government land. Since encroachment has to be removed forthwith, the system of collecting Encroachment Penalty has been discontinued - It is trite to state that no direction in nature of mandamus is to be made to an authority to act contrary to any extant provision in law – Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Manish Choudhury, J.
1. Both these writ petitions - W.P.(C) No. 7516/2019 and W.P.(C) No. 7498/2019 - have been taken up together at the request of the learned counsel for the parties as both the writ petitions involve similar issue.
2. Heard Mr. P.K. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions; Mr. P.S. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Government of Assam for the respondent No. 1; and Mr. N. Goswami, learned Junior Government Advocate, Government of Assam for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
W.P.(C) No. 7516/2019
3. The petitioner herein has claimed that he has been in occupation of a plot of Government land measuring 1 Katha and 10 Lessas, covered by Dag Nos. 89 & 90, situated at Darikapar Khatapathar, Sivasagar, Mouza - Nagarmahal, Sivasagar Revenue Circle ['subject-plot No. 1'] and has constructed his temporary dwelling house thereon. Claiming himself to be a landless person and to be in occupation of the subject-plot No. 1 for around 22 years, he has submitted that he has been paying land revenue in respect of the subject-plot No. 1 up to 2019-2020. Asserting as above, the petitioner stated to have submitted a Kabula application [Application for settlement of waste land] before the Deputy Commissioner, Sivasagar seeking settlement of the subject-plot No. 1 in his favour. As no discernible action regarding the matter of settlement of the subject-plot No. 1 was found to have been taken by the respondent authorities, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondent authorities to grant allotment/settlement of the subject-plot No. 1 in his favour by issuing a Patta. The petitioner is apprehending that the respondent authorities might evict the petitioner without giving any prior notice or giving any opportunity of hearing.
W.P.(C) No. 7498/2019
3.1. The petitioner herein has claimed that she has been in occupation of a plot of Government land measuring 1 Katha and 5 Lessas, covered by Dag No. 38, situated at Namtial Pathar, Sivasagar, Mouza - Nagarmahal, Sivasagar Revenue Circle ['subject-plot No. 2'] and has constructed her temporary dwelling house thereon. Claiming herself to be a landless person and to be in occupation of the subject-plot No. 2 for around 15 years, she has submitted that she has been paying land revenue in respect of the subject-plot No. 1 up to 2019-2020. Asserting as above, the petitioner stated to have submitted a Kabula application before the Deputy Commissioner, Sivasagar seeking settlement of the subject-plot No. 2 in her favour. As no discernible action regarding the matter of settlement of the subject-plot No. 2 was found to have been taken by the respondent authorities, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondent authorities to grant allotment/settlement of the subject-plot No. 2 in her favour by issuing a Patta. The petitioner is apprehending that the respondent authorities might evict the petitioner without giving any prior notice or giving any opportunity of hearing.
4. Mr. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioners, by referring to the Kabula applications, has submitted that the areas of land under possession of the two petitioners are 1 Katha and 10 Lessas [subject-plot No. 1] and 1 katha and 5 Lessas [subject-plot No. 2] respectively, which are permissible to be settled. They have been in occupation of the subject-plot No. 1 and subject-plot No. 2 for 22 years and 15 years respectively. As the Kabula applications have been filed by the petitioners before the respondent authorities seeking allotment/settlement of those two plots of land, it is incumbent on the part of the respondent authorities to process the said applications considering
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioners did not have the right to be settled on the Ceiling Surplus land as they did not fulfill the conditions of landless cultivator....
Point of Law : Amended provisions of Rule 18 (2) of the Settlement Rules does not mandate issuance of any notice upon persons coming in the ambit of the said sub-rule. The petitioner are admittedly i....
An application for government land settlement confers no vested right. Administrative authorities may consider subsequent material facts, such as the acquisition of private land, to determine eligibi....
Eviction notices under Rule 18 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations must afford petitioners an opportunity to demonstrate bona fide claims of right, adhering to principles of natural justice.
State must ensure procedural fairness in eviction while engaging in individualized assessments for rehabilitation claims under applicable land policies.
Possession alone does not confer entitlement to government land; prior rejections of settlement applications by the state are binding.
The court upheld the eviction of unauthorized occupants from government land reserved for a public hospital but mandated a reassessment of rehabilitation claims for eligible indigenous and landless i....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.