Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.
Hasmat Khan, S/o Lt. Ghatu Kha and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Assam Represented By Its Commissioner And Secretary, Government Of Assam, Revenue Department And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C)/2002/2024
Decided On : 08-04-2024
Satra Land - Land Dispute - Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971, Assam State Acquisition of land belonging to Religious or Charitable Institutions of Public Nature Act, 1959 - The judgment discusses the legality and validity of an order passed by the Assam Board of Revenue in connection with a land dispute. The court examined the jurisdiction of the SDO (Sadar), the validity of the proceedings instituted against deceased persons, and the ownership right over Satra land. The court upheld the jurisdiction of the SDO (Sadar) but found the proceedings to be bad in law due to lack of impleading legal heirs and the allocation of Satra land to persons of a different religion, which was not permissible under the Act of 1959. The court also emphasized the importance of preserving Satra land and dismissed the writ petition due to inordinate delay, lack of bona fide, and the petitioners' attempt to acquire land belonging to the Satra.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a dispute over the ownership right of a plot of Satra land. The petitioners challenged an order passed by the Assam Board of Revenue in connection with the land dispute, claiming that they were not parties in the proceedings and that the Assam State Acquisition of Lands belonging to Religious Charitable Institution of Public Nature Act of 1959 was not applicable.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the proceedings before the SDO (Sadar) were bad in law due to lack of impleading legal heirs and the allocation of Satra land to persons of a different religion, which was not permissible under the Act of 1959. The court also dismissed the writ petition due to inordinate delay, lack of bona fide, and the petitioners' attempt to acquire land belonging to the Satra.
Issues: The primary grounds of challenge against the order dated 18.07.2005 of the Assam Board of Revenue were the lack of impleading the petitioners as parties and the inapplicability of the Assam State Acquisition of Lands belonging to Religious Charitable Institution of Public Nature Act of 1959.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the proceedings before the SDO (Sadar) were bad in law due to lack of impleading legal heirs and the allocation of Satra land to persons of a different religion, which was not permissible under the Act of 1959. The court also emphasized the importance of preserving Satra land and dismissed the writ petition due to inordinate delay, lack of bona fide, and the petitioners' attempt to acquire land belonging to the Satra.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and made no order as to cost.
1. Considering the subject matter involved, the grounds of challenge, the various orders passed in the subject including orders passed by this Court and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the motion stage itself.
2. An order dated 18.07.2005 passed by the learned Assam Board of Revenue (hereinafter ABR) is the subject matter of challenge in this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. The subject matter of the case before the learned ABR was in connection with a plot of land measuring 17 Bighas 2 Katha 6 Lechas. The aforesaid appeal was instituted by one Dipendranath Goswami which was in the form of an appeal against an order dated 09.01.2004 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Sadar), Barpeta in T.R. Case No. 80/2003-04. Certain persons who were arrayed as respondent nos. 5 to 10 in the said appeal had applied for ownership right over the aforesaid plot of land covered by Dag No. 318 of Nisf Khiraj & Patta No. 1 of village Ganakparaof Mouza Chengain the district of Barpeta. The appellant therein had contended that such application was filed by suppressing the actual facts and by misrepresentation. However, the application which was registered as T.R. Case No. 80/2003-04 was allowed. Amongst various grounds taken in the appeal, it was contended that notices were not issued and without such notice, orders under the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971 was passed.
4. The learned ABR, after hearing the parties had come to the conclusion that the appeal was having merits and accordingly the same was allowed and the impugned order dated 09.01.2004 passed by the SDO (Sadar), Barpeta in T.R. Case No. 80/2004 was set aside. For ready reference, the relevant part of the order is extracted herein below.
From the chitha of the suit land available in the case record, it is seen that the patta of the land is Nisf Khiraj patta. Nisf Khiraj Khiraj patta or half revenue estates originate from the land given by the Ahom Kings which letter came to be known as Dharmottar, Debottar, and Brahmottar land. Therefore, it cannot be disputed now that the land is not Satra land. The proviso to Section 15 A of the Assam State Acquisition of land belonging to Religious or Charitable Institutions of Public Nature Act, 1959, as amended, states that notwithstanding anything contained in the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation 1886, the right of transfer of land belonging to the above mentioned institutions for a ryot shall only to a person belonging to same religion in which the ownership of land was vested. Here it is seen that the so called tenant who are given ownership right by the S.D.O. (Sadar) Barpeta belong to the another religion. Therefore, granting of ownership right of Satra land to person belonging to a religion other than that of the person to whom the Satra belongs is not permissible. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the S.D.O. (Sadar), Barpeta is not valid and the
The judgment establishes the importance of preserving Satra land and emphasizes the legal provisions prohibiting the allocation of Satra land to persons of a different religion under the Assam State ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretionary nature of the extraordinary remedy granted under Article 226 of the Constitution, the need to balance legal formulations with equ....
The court emphasized the limited scope of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and the discretionary nature of the extraordinary remedy granted, as established by the S....
The Assam Board of Revenue cannot exercise jurisdiction over matters that have been conclusively settled by a competent court, especially when procedural requirements like condonation of delay are no....
The court upheld the proprietary rights of landowners conferred by historical orders, emphasizing the necessity of due process in land acquisition.
The High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by quasi-judicial authorities in the absence of any jurisdictional error or patent perversity.
A quasi-judicial authority exercising review or supervisory jurisdiction cannot expand the scope of its adjudication to include property or issues not present in the original proceedings. Furthermore....
The challenge to the permission under Section 54 of the Ordinance paled into insignificance as the sale deed was already executed and challenged before the Civil Court, and the authorities were not o....
Revenue Authorities cannot adjudicate land title disputes; such matters must be resolved by Civil Courts under the Assam Land Revenue Regulation, 1886.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
