IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.
Zubbar Ali, S/o. Ibrahim Ali & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Assam, Rep. by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Revenue Settlement Deptt. & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 6230 of 2017, WP(C) No. 4637 of 2021
Decided On : 20-04-2023
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Settlement Rules - Rule 18[2] and Rule 18[3] - Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 - Plots of land – Constructions - Petitioners or their predecessors-in-interest [father/grandfathers] were residents of different villagers in the erstwhile - Names of petitioners’ fathers/grandfathers were enlisted in Voters’ Lists prior and also appeared in National Register of Citizens [NRC] of 1951, in respect of their respective earlier residences, though no documents in support of said facts have been annexed, other than few revenue receipts issued in the name of few of petitioners, with writ petitions has, however, submitted that petitioners are in position to produce documents as regards enlistment of petitioner’s names in Voters Lists and in NRC 1951, electricity connections, revenue receipts, etc – Held, In counter affidavit, respondent IWAI authorities have mentioned that out of total 135 nos. of persons, 66 nos. of persons have collected their payments from Circle Officer, Boitamari Revenue Circle and out of those 66 nos. of persons, 22 nos. of persons are petitioners in instant writ petitions - At this stage, Ms. Choudhury has submitted that there are total 75 nos. of petitioners in two writ petitions - Though two writ petitions have been dismissed, remaining petitioners have at least a right to be considered in a similar manner like 22 nos. of petitioners who have been disbursed payment - In view of the discussions made above and for reasons assigned therein, Court finds that two writ petitions are bereft of any merits and are liable to be dismissed- It is accordingly ordered.
JUDGMENT :
In the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 6230/2017, 68 nos. of petitioners have joined together to institute the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners, 7 in nos., have instituted the other writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 4637/2021. The petitioners in both the writ petitions have claimed that they have espoused a common cause of action. In both the writ petitions, the common relief the petitioners have sought for is a direction to the respondent authorities not to evict the petitioners from the lands located at Village - Bhatipara, Boitamari Revenue Circle, District – Bongaigaon by the side of the River Brahmaputra which they have claimed to be in possession. Claiming that they are flood affected people the petitioners have also sought for a direction for settlement of those plots of land in their favour as per the Land Policy of the State Government and/or under the provisions of Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 and the settlement Rules framed thereunder.
2. I have heard Ms. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions; Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for the respondent nos. 1 & 2 in W.P.[C] no. 6230/2017 and for the respondent nos. 3 & 4 in W.P.[C] no. 4637/2021; Mr. R. Talukdar, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 3 – 5 in W.P.[C] no. 6230/2017 and for the respondent nos. 5 – 7 in W.P.[C] no. 4637/2021; Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 7 & 8 in W.P.[C] no. 6230/2017; and Mr. C. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited [NHIDCL] for the respondent nos. 9 & 10 in W.P.[C] no. 6230/2017.
3. The case of the petitioners, as projected in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 6230/2017 as well as by Ms. Chudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the petitioners or their predecessors-in-interest [father/grandfathers] were residents of different villagers in the erstwhile Goalpara district and now Bongaigaon district. The names of the petitioners’ fathers/grandfathers were enlisted in the Voters’ Lists prior to 25.03.1971 and also appeared in the National Register of Citizens [NRC] of 1951, in respect of their respective earlier residences, though no documents in support of the said facts have been annexed, other than few revenue receipts issued in the name of few of the petitioners, with the writ petitions. Ms. Choudhury has, however, submitted that the petitioners are in position to produce the documents as regards enlistment of the petitioner’s names in the Voters Lists and in the NRC 1951, electricity connections, revenue receipts, etc.
3.1. The petitioners have projected that their fathers/grandfathers were landless indigenous people and were residing as permissive occupants/tenants under different landlords in different villages in the present district of Bongaigaon. In course of time, they came to be settled in parcels of Government Khas lands at Village – Bhatipara under Boitamari Revenue Circle, District – Bongaigaon, situated by the bank of River Brahmaputra for about 40 years earlier. But due to flood during the year : 1991-1992, the entire area where the petitioners or their predecessors-in-interest had settled, stood submerged in River Brahmaputra. As a result, the petitioners became shelterless and had to take shelter in parcels of land which were at the western side of the previous parcels of land. After taking shelter there, the petitioners constructed dwelling houses, etc. In course of time, few of the original possessors died and accordingly, the petitioners being successors of the original possessors, continued to reside in those parcels of land. The petitioners have stated that they have been provided with electricity connections, ration cards, etc. apart from enlistment of their names in the Voters’ List under 35 no. Abhayapuri South [SC] Legislative Assembly Constituency [LAC]. In support of t
State of Assam and others vs. Rakha Kanoo Smt and others
Kundargaon Anti Eviction Action Committee vs. State of Assam
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....
Possession alone does not confer entitlement to government land; prior rejections of settlement applications by the state are binding.
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.
The court ruled that eviction without a hearing violates the principles of natural justice and Article 21 of the Constitution.
The court established that eviction from khas land does not require prior notice under Rule 18(2) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, and emphasized the primacy of public interest in evic....
State must ensure procedural fairness in eviction while engaging in individualized assessments for rehabilitation claims under applicable land policies.
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.