Compliance with Rule 95A of the Settlement Rules before using or disposing of grazing grounds, and the power of the Deputy Commissioner to recommend denotification of VGR land.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. M. H. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. U. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for the respondent No.1 as well as Ms. M. Barman, the learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5.

2. The instant writ petition is filed by 37 petitioners alleging the inaction of the respondent authorities in granting allotment to the petitioners in spite of the fact that the District Level Scrutiny Committee, Mangaldai by its Resolution Nos.30 and 31 adopted in its meeting dtd. 20/12/2005 have recommended of granting allotment of Village Grazing Reserve (for short, VGR) land to the petitioners. For the sake of convenience, it would be relevant to take note of the Resolution Nos.30 and 31 of the Land Advisory Committee, Mangaldai held on 20/12/2005 which are quoted herein below:

Resolution No.30: The committee recommended the proposal for settlement of VGR land measuring 4B-1K-5L out of 21B-4K-10L covered by Dag No.5 (PT) of Bandi Chapari under Chapai Mouza in favour of Md. Khalilur Rahman and 16 others @ 1K-5L land each. However, towards the end of the meeting few members raised objection on the recommendation and demanded to recommend at least one bigha of land to each on the ground that the incumbent are erosion affected families and are cultivators by profession, for which 1K-5L of land is too less. The committee then authorized the Deputy Commissioner to verify the matter further.

Resolution No.31: The committee recommended the proposal for settlement of VGR land measuring 5B out of 27B-2K-4L covered by Dag No.5 (PT) of Bandi Chapari under Chapai Mouza in favour of Md. Mainul Hoque and 19 others @ 1K-5L land each. However, towards the end of the meeting few members raised objection on the recommendation and demanded to recommend at least one bigha of land to each on the ground that the incumbent are erosion affected families and are cultivators by profession, for which 1K-5L of land is too less. The committee then authorized the Deputy Commissioner to verify the matter further.

3. From a fair reading of the said resolutions it is apparent that the District Level Committee has recommended the proposal for settlement of VGR land measuring 4B-1K-5L out of 21B-4K-10L as well as 5B out of 27B- 2K-4L to 37 petitioners. It is also relevant to take note of that in the said resolutions it has been mentioned that the petitioners' are erosion affected families and are cultivators by profession, and as such, allotment of land should be more than 1K-5L, for which the Committee authorized the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang to verify the matter further.

4. A perusal of the writ petition reveals that the file pertaining to settlement of land to the petitioners moved from one table to the other for years giving hope to the petitioners that one day they would be granted the allotment as per the State Government policy of allotment of land. However, nothing has happed for a period of 9 years and the petitioners have run from pillar to post and the State Authorities, on one ground or the other, deferred any decision in the said matter. Under such circumstances the petitioners have been constrained to file the instant writ petition in the year 2014.

5. It appears on record that on 17/12/2014, this Court had issued notice making it returnable by 4 (four) weeks and in the said order itself this Court duly recorded the case of the petitioners. The record further reveal that since 2014, almost 8 years has passed by but the respondent authorities have not filed their affidavit-in-opposition thereby bringing on record their stand as to why the allotment has not been made in favour of the petitioners although the above recommendations were made in favour of the petitioners.

6. Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue Department submitted that the reason behind non-granting the all