Back
2023 Supreme(Gau) 836
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Girish Nath S/o Debeswar Nath – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam And 4 Ors. – Respondents
WP(C)3824 of 2017
Decided on : 02-08-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. R. Phukan, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. N. Goswami, Mr. S. Dutta, Advocate
Point of Law: Non-consideration of petitioner’s application by concerned respondent authorities violates mandate of Article 14 of Constitution.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 - Threatening to evict from land - Settlement of land - Possession of a plot of land - Petitioner aggrieved by inaction on part of respondent authorities in not granting settlement of land to petitioner, and on other hand, threatening to evict petitioner from land – Petitioner was illegally occupying land in question by surrounding boundary pucca wall and constructing RCC building - Para 10.
Finding of the Court: There has been no denial by respondent authorities to all these documents save and except only stating in affidavit-in-opposition that said land has been mentioned in Remark Column of ‘Chitha’ as “reserved for ‘Capital’ in favour of GAD” and petitioner was illegally occupying land in question by surrounding boundary pucca wall and constructing RCC building - Court is of firm view that petitioner has a legitimate expectation for consideration of his application for settlement and non-consideration of petitioner’s application by concerned respondent authorities violates mandate of Article 14 of Constitution.
Result: Writ petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner herein has approached this Court being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in not granting settlement of the land to the petitioner, and on the other hand, threatening to evict the petitioner from the said land.
2. The case of the petitioner herein is that he is in possession of a plot of land measuring 1 katha 5 lechas covered by Dag No.132 situated at Village-Sarumataria under Beltola Mouza by constructing dwelling houses since the year 1980.
3. The petitioner submitted an application for settlement of the said land in the month of January, 1995 which was duly received by the respondent authorities. Pursuant thereto, the Assistant Settlement Officer vide the letter dated 06.01.1995 submitted a report to the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati for necessary action. In the said letter, it was stated that the land as applied by the petitioner for settlement is a Government land reserved for construction of temporary ‘Capital’ proposed to be constructed over the land covered by Dag No.132 of Village-Sarumataria, under Beltola Mouza. In continuation to the said letter, the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati vide the another letter dated 10.01.1995, submitted a report before the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue (Settlement) Branch for necessary action. In the said letter, it was stated that the petitioner applied for settlement of land measuring 1 katha 5 lechas covered by Dag No.132 of Village-Sarumataria under Beltola Mouza.
4. It transpires that the Land Advisory Committee held a meeting on 24.10.2005, i.e. almost after 10 years from the date of application so filed by the petitioner. In the said meeting of Land Advisory Committee, the proposal for settlement of land in favour of the petitioner was discussed and it was recommended that the plot of land measuring 1 katha 5 lechas covered by Dag No.132 for settlement vide the Resolution No.28. This aspect of the matter would be seen from the communication issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati dated 17.01.2006 to the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue (Settlement) Department.
5. It is the further case of the petitioner that his settlement application continued to be pending in spite of recommendation given by the Land Advisory Committee. But in respect to the same Dag Number, there has been certain settlement issued in favour of various persons of land measuring around 18 lechas. The petitioner along with others thereafter submitted a representation for consideration of their settlement proposal vide the representation dated 26.12.2016. However, neither the representation was considered nor the settlement proposal of the petitioner was allowed for which the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.
6. It is the further case of the petitioner that on one hand the respondent authorities are not taking steps for granting settlement to the petitioner though 22 years have passed by pursuant to the submission of the application, and on the other hand, the petitioner was under threat of being evicted from the said land.
7. It appears from the record that this Court vide an order dated 22.06.2017 had issued notice, and in the interim, it was directed that the petitioner shall not be evicted from the land in question. The said order continued to be holding the field till date.
8. It is also relevant to take note of that an affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the respondent No.4, i.e. the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati. Surprisingly nothing has been stated in the said affidavit-in-opposition save and except stating that in the remark column of the ‘Chitha’ it is written “as reserved for ‘Capital’ in favour of the GAD in Dag No.132 (old)/35 (new) of Village-Sarumataria under Beltola Mouza”. It was further mentioned that the petitioner has been illegally occupying the land in Dag No.132(old)/35 (new) by surrounding boun
