Point of Law: Rule 95A of Grazing Rules which reads as if at any time Deputy Commissioner is of opinion that a village grazing ground constituted under foregoing rules is wholly or in part not needed for purpose for which it was allotted, he shall publish a notice regarding proposed cancellation of allotment.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP MEHTA, J.

1. The instant intra-Court writ appeal is directed against the judgment & final order dated 23.11.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No. 1896/2011 (Khagorijan Anchalik Krishak Suraksha Samiti vs. State of Assam and Others), whereby the writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner Samiti was accepted and the settlement of 75 Bighas of Village Grazing Reserve (VGR) land in favour of the appellant (respondent No. 3 in the writ petition) located in Majorati VGR in Nizsahar Mouza, District-Nagaon vide the order dated 11.09.1970 issued by the Deputy Commissioner (respondent No. 3 herein) and as approved by the State Government vide communication dated 06.10.1970, was interfered with and set aside.

2. A perusal of the impugned judgment & order would reveal that the learned Single Judge entertained the writ petition filed after nearly 40(forty) years of the settlement order accepting the plea of the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner on the ground that the order of settlement never came into public domain and that the land in question was continuously being used by the villagers for grazing their household cattle. For the first time, on 29.05.2010, some people from Nagaon Town made an attempt to occupy the grazing land, whereupon a law and order situation flared up. As the appellant herein started staking claims that it was the owner of the VGR land, the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner collected details and information and came across the orders of settlement of the VGR land issued in the year 1970. It was pleaded in the writ petition that as the allottees never asserted their rights upon the VGR land for nearly 40(forty) years and tried to take possession only on 29.05.2010, the writ petition came to be filed and was not a belated action.

3. Pertinent ground to challenge the impugned order as set out in the writ petition was that the mandatory procedure for de-reservation of VGR land, as envisaged under Rule 95A of the Rules for the Allotment of Grazing Grounds in Chapter-II of the Assam Land & Revenue Regulation, 1886 (hereinafter referred to as the “Grazing Rules”), was disregarded. The affected villagers were not provided appropriate opportunity to file objections against the de-reservation proposal. It was pointed out that the Government also noticed illegality in the procedure by observing that the VGR land was being allotted without de-reservation and accordingly, a direction was issued to stop the settlement made in favour of the Goshala.

4. After examining the material available on record, the learned Single Bench, discussed the core issue agitated in the writ petition and adjudicated the same in the following terms:

“14. Under the Land Revenue Regulation, the Deputy Commissioner is vested with the power for de-reservation of grazing land, but due process for de-reservation specified under Rule 95A of the Grazing Rules, must be followed in all such cases. Neither the case records nor the affidavits of the respondents suggest the publication of any notice inviting objection on the de-reservation proposal. Therefore it is obvious that the affected villagers were denied any hearing or opportunity to file objections. Hence clear infringement of the procedure for de-reservation envisaged by the Grazing Rules, is seen in the present case.

15. Now let us revert back to the fundamental question on whether land reserved for grazing purpose can be allotted, without first undertaking the exercise envisaged by Rule 95A of the Grazing Rules. The case records show that the proposal for de-reservation of the VGR was given much after the settlement was made on 11.09.1970. The learned Govt. advocate has produced the letter dated 15.11.1972, which shows that the proposal (for de-reservation of 75 bighas of land of the Majar Ati VGR) was approved only on 15.11.1972, by the Government.

16. Apart from the above infirmity, the entire allotment was made in a hush hush fashion keeping the affecte