JUDGMENT :

Heard Shri D.K. Kotoky, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri D. Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam assisted by Shri A. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel appearing for the State respondents.

2. Before going to the issue which requires a determination, the facts of the case may be put in a brief.

3. The petitioner is the legal heir of one Rajani Goswami, who along with four others claimed to be the recorded pattadars of a permanently settled Estate land measuring 101 Bigha 9 Lechas land covered by Nisf-Khirja Patta No. 1, village Ganakpara of Chenga Mouza in the district of Barpeta. The petitioner claims that he has a permanent, heritable and transferable right over the share of his deceased father, who was a pattadar.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that a case was instituted by six persons being TR Case No. 80/2003-04 wherein the pattadars were impleaded. In the said case, ownership right was prayed for over a plot of land measuring 17 Bigha 2 Katha 6 Lechas covered by Dag No. 318 of N.K. Patta No. 1 claiming themselves to be the riyat. In the said case, an order dated 09.01.2004 was passed in favour of the applicants (Riyats). Against the aforesaid order dated 09.01.2004, an appeal was preferred before the learned Assam Board of Revenue which was registered as Appeal Case No. 22RA(B)/2004. It is the case of the petitioner that the learned ABR had passed a judgment dated 18.07.2005 with an observation that “it cannot be disputed now that the land is not Xatra Land”. The petitioner alleges that the appeal was disposed of without any conclusive proof of the facts that the said land is a Xatra Land.

5. In terms of the said judgment, the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta has passed an order dated 11.04.2022 directing the Circle Officer, Chenga Revenue Circle to correct the land records in favour of the Pirala Xatra in village Ganakpara, Mouza-Chenga, N.K. Patta No. 1 measuring 101 Bigha 0 Katha 9 Lechas. The said correction was required to be done in terms of the judgment dated 18.07.2005 passed by the learned ABR in the aforesaid appeal. The order had also observed that the correction to be done as per the provision of the Assam State Acquisition of Lands Belonging to Religious or Charitable Institution of Public Nature Act, 1959 along with Section 15(a) and Section 151 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. It is this order dated 11.04.2022 which is the subject matter of challenge.

6. Shri Kotoky, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 11.04.2022 is not sustainable on the following counts. He submits that there was no Xatra in the name of Pirala. In other words, he submits that Pirala Xatra was not an existing Xatra. Secondly, it is submitted that the aforesaid Act of 1959 is not applicable as recourse to the said Act is done for acquisition of land and in the instant case, since there is no Xatra called Pirala Xatra, there is no application of the said Act. Shri Kotoky has also referred to the Article 31A of the Constitution of India whereby reference has been made to the proviso that in case of acquisition by the State, the land which are under the personal cultivation cannot be acquired.

7. Per contra, Shri Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam however vehemently opposes the writ petition. By drawing the attention of this Court to the pleadings filed in the form of a counter affidavit as well as in additional affidavit, it is submitted that the bonafide of the petitioner in approaching this Court is very much under doubt. In this connection, the averments made in paragraph 18 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 03.11.2022 has been referred to. For ready reference, the said averments made in paragraph 18 is extracted hereinbelow-

“18. That the deponent has strong reason to believe that the writ petitioner is not personally aggrieved, but he has filed the present writ petition at the behest of some vested interests. This notion on the part of the deponent