Point of Law: An order of cancellation of annual lease is permissible only when annual lease holder transfers same in violation of the conditions of annual lease.

JUDGMENT :

The original writ petitioner who instituted the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, was one Indu Prava Bordoloi, wife of one Late Saranan Bordoloi. The name of the original writ petitioner, Indu Prava Bordoloi was substituted by her 4 [four] legal representatives pursuant to an order dated 20.07.2018 passed in an interlocutory application, I.A.[Civil] no. 372/2018 filed for substitution. In the writ petition, the original party-respondent no. 4 was one Jibon Dutta, who had been substituted by his 6 [six] legal representatives pursuant to an order dated 15.03.2019 passed in the interlocutory application, I.A.[Civil] no. 812/2019, filed for substitution.

2. An order dated 13.02.2012 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner [Revenue], Lakhimpur in N.R. Case no. 35/2002 has been challenged in the writ petition.

3. From the case records and the averments made in the pleadings, it has emerged that Late Ananta Bordoloi had four sons viz. [i] Upen Bordoloi; [ii] Suraj Bordoloi; [iii] Amulya Bordoloi; and [iv] Saranan Bordoloi. Saranan Bordoloi was the husband of the original writ petitioner, Indu Prava Bordoloi. Late Lilabati Bordoloi, who expired in the year 1968, was the wife of Ananta Bordoloi. Ananta Bordoloi pre-deceased his wife in the year 1963. It is stated that Ananta Bordoloi was owner and possessor of a few parcels of land including one plot of land measuring 16 Lessas, covered by Annual Patta no. 1 & Dag no. 183, located at North Lakhimpur Town Part-I, Mouza – Lakhimpur, District – Lakhimpur [hereinafter referred to as ‘the subject-plot’, at places, for easy reference].

4. I have heard Mr. N.N. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners; Ms. N. Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for the respondent no. 1; Mr. C.K.S. Baruah, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 2 & 3; and Mr. A. Sattar, learned counsel for the substituted legal representatives of the respondent no. 4.

5. From the impugned order dated 13.02.2012, it is revealed that the Additional Deputy Commissioner [Revenue], Lakhimpur had ordered cancellation of the annual patta being Annual Patta no. 1, pertaining to an area of 4 [four] Lessas falling within Dag no. 183, located at North Lakhimpur Town Part – I, Mouza – Lakhimpur, Assam on the premise that the provisions contained in Rule 1[2][c] of the Settlement Rules framed under the provisions of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 [‘the Regulation, 1886’, for short] had been violated in respect of the said 4 [four] Lessas out of the subject-plot and it was further ordered to convert the said 4 [four] Lessas falling within the subject-plot into Government land. The respondent no. 3 was directed to make necessary corrections accordingly in the revenue records. It is further evident from the impugned order dated 13.02.2012 that the said order was passed on the basis of the documents furnished in a Report submitted by the then Circle Officer, North Lakhimpur Revenue Circle [the respondent no. 3].

6. As the impugned order dated 13.02.2012 was passed entirely on the basis of a Report of the respondent no. 3, it is necessary to look into the contents of the said Report, which was in the form of an Order dated 09.06.2003. From the Report/Order dated 09.06.2003, it transpires that Suraj Bordoloi, son of Late Ananta Bordoloi claiming himself to be a co-pattadar of the subject-plot, filed a petition stating that 4 [four] Lessas of land out of the subject-plot had been transferred by him by way of sale to Jibon Dutta i.e. the original party-respondent no. 4. Notices were thereafter served upon the parties including Saranan Bordoloi. After service of notice, Saranan Bordoloi i.e. the husband of the original writ petitioner appeared before the respondent no. 3 and objected the petition filed by Suraj Bordoloi by stating that he did not transfer the possession of the subject-plot to anyone. The respondent no. 3 upon perusal of the