SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Gau) 1381

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.
Monikha Borah W/o Nitul Borah And Ors - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam And Ors – Respondents
WP(C) 6569 of 2023
Decided on : 14-12-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR M BARMAN
For the Respondent: SR GA,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 cultivators and had not followed the required procedure for lease application.

Headnote:

Ceiling Surplus Land - Eviction - Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1956, Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 - Section 15, 16, 17, Rule 5, 15, 16, 18 - The judgment discusses the eviction of petitioners from Ceiling Surplus land and the legal provisions governing the disposal of such land under the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1956 and the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. It highlights the conditions for settlement of land, the distinction between eviction under different rules, and the requirement of notice for eviction.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, occupying Ceiling Surplus land, were served with a notice to vacate the land allotted for public road widening, Sub-Division Office, and a Cricket Stadium. The petitioners claimed to be indigenous landless persons and sought allotment of the land in their favor.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners did not have the right to be settled on the land as they were not cultivating tenants under the previous owner and did not fulfill the conditions of landless cultivators as per the Act. The court also noted that the petitioners did not submit applications for lease of the land as required by the Settlement Rules.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners could be considered for allotment/settlement of the land they were occupying, and whether the notice for eviction was valid.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners did not have the right to be settled on the land as they did not fulfill the conditions of landless cultivators and had not followed the required procedure for lease application. The court also emphasized the distinction between eviction under different rules and the requirement of notice for eviction.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court ordered the petitioners to vacate the land within a reasonable period, not later than 20.01.2024. The court also directed the Competent Authority to consider the petitioners' applications for allotment/settlement under the Land Policy - 2019, and the State respondents to provide a reasonable opportunity for the petitioners to vacate the land.

JUDGMENT :

By this writ petition instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, 20 [twenty] in nos., have assailed a contemplated process of eviction, which has been initiated by serving a notice upon them under the hand of the respondent no. 3, that is, the Circle Officer, Naharkatia Revenue Circle, District – Dibrugarh. By the notice, shown to have been issued on 30.10.2023, the petitioners have been informed that they are encroaching upon parcels of Government land and these parcels of Government land, had already been allotted for widening of public road, for establishment of a Sub-Division Office at Naharkatia and for construction of a Cricket Stadium. The petitioners have been informed by the notice that they should vacate the parcels of land, which are under their unauthorised occupation, within a period of 15 [fifteen] days from the date of receipt of the notice.

2. I have heard Mr. M. Barman, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam assisted by Mr. R. Borpujari & Ms. P.R. Mahanta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue and Disaster Management Department for the respondent nos. 1 – 4 & 6; and Ms. A. Gayan, learned Central Government Counsel [CGC] for the respondent no. 5.

3. The learned counsel for the parties have submitted that the pleadings between the parties have already been exchanged and the writ petition can be taken up for final consideration at the motion stage itself. Accordingly, as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition has been taken up for final consideration.

4. It is not in dispute that the parcels of land, measuring 48 Bighas, which is the subject-matter of the writ petition, are Ceiling Surplus lands. It is also not in dispute that out of 48 Bighas of land under Dag no. 44 [Part] located in Village – Naharkatia [Na-Gaon] Hazuapathar, a parcel of land measuring 25 Bighas has, later on, been allotted for a playground by the Sub-Divisional Land Advisory Committee [SDLAC] by a Resolution passed in its Meeting, held on 27.02.2023.

5. The case of the petitioners is that they belong to the lower economic strata in the society and having no land in their individual names, they were in lookout of lands and in the process, they came to be in occupation of parts of the parcels of land covered by Dag no. 44 [Part] at Village – Naharkatia [Na-Gaon] Hazuapathar. In the writ petition, the petitioners have stated that some of the petitioners are staying in those lands since a long time. One of the petitioners, that is, the petitioner no. 6 has also been extended the benefit under the Pradhan Mantri Awaz Yojana [PMAY] and on being extended the benefit, he has constructed a PMAY House in the plot of land under his occupation. With regard to their periods of occupation, the petitioners have sought to draw support from various documents including documents issued by Village Land Management Conservation Committee [VLMCC], Naharkatia Revenue Circle and the documents issued by the Gaon Pradhan in their favour. Reliance is placed also in a Judgment and Order dated 03.10.2023 of a coordinate bench of this Court rendered in a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 3901/2023, to submit that the present petitioners are also similarly situated like the petitioners in the said writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 3901/2023.

6. Au contraire, the learned Advocate General, Assam has submitted that since the parcels of land are Ceiling Surplus land and the petitioners were not cultivating tenants under the previous owner, they do not have any right to be settled in those parcels of land. In the year 2016, a new Sub-Division viz. Naharkatia Civil Sub-Division had been created and for establishment of the infrastructure the newly created Naharkatia Civil Sub-Division including office building, Sub-Divisional Circuit House, etc., 48 Bighas of land under Dag no. 44 [Part] at Village – Naharkatia [Na-Gaon] Hazuapathar was identified, earmarked and allotted.

Thereafter,

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top