Ineligibility for land settlement under Clause 14.3 of the Land Policy of 1989

JUDGMENT :

The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner to assail a speaking order dated 24.07.2019 passed by the respondent no. 3 whereby the petitioner’s prayer for settlement of a plot of land measuring 15 Lessas, covered by Government Dag no. 5072, situate at Sivasagar Town [Part-II], Mouza – Nagarmohol, District – Sivasagar [‘the subject-plot’, for short] has been rejected.

2. I have heard Mr. P.K. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. B. Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam assisted by Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue & Disaster Management Department and Mr. R.R. Kakoti, learned counsel for all the respondents.

3. The petitioner claims to be an indigenous person. It transpires from the impugned speaking order that the petitioner submitted applications, dated 05.11.2015 & 23.11.2015, before the respondent authorities with a prayer to accord approval for settlement of the subject-plot.

4. The petitioner has stated that the petitioner had been in possession of a plot of land since a long period of time. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 5731/2013. While issuing notices to the respondents by order dated 07.10.2013, the Court had directed, as an interim measure, that possession of the petitioner in respect of a parcel of land measuring 2 Kathas 8 Lessas situate at Ward no. 9, Mouza – Nagarmohol, District - Sivasagar should not be disturbed. The subject-plot is part of the said 2 Kathas 8 Lessas in respect of which the said interim order was passed on 07.10.2013.

4.1. On the basis of the application of the petitioner seeking settlement of the subject-plot, the Circle Office, Sivasagar Revenue Circle prepared a proposal for allotment/settlement of the subject-plot and the said proposal came to be placed before the Sub-Divisional Land Advisory Committee [SDLAC], Sivasagar Sub-Division in its Meeting, held on 12.01.2015, under the chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner, Sivasagar being the Chairman of the SDLAC. The SDLAC discussed the proposal for settlement of the subject-plot in favour of the petitioner and had thereafter, approved the same subject to realization of due premium.

4.2. Alleging that the proposal regarding settlement of the subject-plot in favour of the petitioner was not considered with due earnestness, the petitioner preferred the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 5731/2013. The writ petition was finally disposed of by an Order dated 22.04.2015 observing inter alia to the effect that whether the particular land should be allotted to the petitioner or not, was a matter to be decided by the appropriate department of the State Government. Having regard to the nature of the grievance raised, the writ petition was disposed of by directing the State Government to examine the feasibility or otherwise of the case of the petitioner for settlement of the subject-plot and after taking such decision, to communicate the decision to the petitioner.

4.3. After disposal of the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 5731/2013 by the Order dated 22.04.2015, a proposal was forwarded by the Circle Officer, Sivasagar Revenue Circle to the Deputy Commissioner, Sivasagar on 15.06.2015 indicating the premium amount that was required to be collected in the event of settlement of the subject-plot was made in favour of the petitioner. The proposal for settlement of the subject-plot was thereafter, forwarded to the Revenue & Disaster Management Department from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Sivasagar on 20.06.2015 and the Revenue & Disaster Management Department had, in turn, wrote to the Deputy Commissioner, Sivasagar on 04.11.2015 to abide the direction made in the Order dated 22.04.2015 passed in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 5731/2013. It was thereafter, the impugned speaking order came to be passed on 24.07.2019.

5. The main ground on which the proposal for settlement of the subject-plot in