IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.
MD. JAKIR HUSSAIN ALIAS JAKIR ALI, S/O. LT. ANJUM ALI - Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE OF ASSAM, REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND D.M.DEPTT., AND ORS. - Respondents
WP(C) No.388 Of 2021
Decided On : 12-08-2024
Land - Revenue - Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 - Sections 1(2)(c), 116 - The Court interpreted the provisions regarding annual leases, emphasizing the necessity of due process and natural justice in cancellation proceedings, ultimately restoring the annual patta to the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the cancellation of an annual patta for land previously held by his deceased father, asserting that he and his family had peacefully possessed the land without any transfer to a third party.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the cancellation of the annual patta was executed without providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice and the procedural requirements of the Settlement Rules.
Issues: Whether the cancellation of the annual patta was valid given the lack of notice and opportunity for the petitioner to contest the claims made by the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the rights of an annual patta holder are inheritable and that any cancellation must follow due process, including notice and a hearing.
Result: The Court quashed the orders canceling the annual patta and restored it to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
(N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.) :
Heard Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue and Disaster Management Department appearing for the respondents No. 1 & 2 and Ms. U. Das, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate appearing for the respondents no. 3 to 6 as well as Ms. A. J. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 7.
2. The challenge made in the present proceeding is to an order dated 06.10.2020, passed by the Assam Board of Revenue in Revenue Appeal No. 84R. A. (L)/2019. The petitioner had also presented a challenge to an order dated 19.03.2018, passed by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Lakhimpur in N. R. Case No. 32/2018 and an order dated 08.03.2018, passed by the Circle Officer, North Lakhimpur Revenue Circle, Lakhimpur in Case No. 18/2018.
3. The petitioner, herein, is the legal heir of Late Anjum Ali. Late Anjum Ali, on 06.02.1980, was issued with a Annual Khiraj Patta No. 7 by the Settlement Officer, Lakhimpur and thereby settling with him a plot of land measuring 01 Bigha, 02 Kathas, 18 Lechas; covered by Dag No. 397 and another plot of land measuring 01 Bigha, 03 Kathas, 04 Lechas; covered by Dag No. 64 situated at village Borbosa under Nakari Mouza in the district of Lakhimpur. The total area of land so settled with late Anjum Ali was 03 Bighas, 01 Katha and 02 Lechas. The father of the petitioner, late Anjum Ali had died in the year 2006. The petitioner contends that after the death of Anjum Ali, his legal heirs, including the petitioner, herein; had arrived at an amicable settlement amongst themselves as regards the immovable properties, left behind by his father late Anjum Ali and the land measuring 01 Bigha, 02 Kathas and 18 Lechas; covered by Dag No. 397 of Annual Patta No. 7, fell within the share of the petitioner. It is the contention of the petitioner that he has been enjoying the possession of the said land and carrying out cultivation thereon, along with rearing of cattle without any objection or disturbance from any corner.
4. It is contended that the respondent no. 7 had preferred an application before the Circle Officer, North Lakhimpur Revenue Circle, Lakhimpur on 07.06.2016; claiming that the land in question was purchased from the family of the petitioner by him and has been possessing the same and accordingly, it was prayed that the land so purchased by the respondent no. 7 be mutated in his name by deleting the name of the opposite parties. It is to be noted that the father of the petitioner along with his brothers and the petitioner himself, were named as the opposite parties in the said application. The prayer so made by the respondent no. 7 was to the extent of the plot of land measuring 01 Bigha, 10 Lechas; covered by Dag No. 397 under Annual Patta No. 7. It is seen that in pursuance to the said application, the jurisdictional Lat Mandal had submitted a report on 11.12.2017, and therein, in view of the transfer of the land in the name of the respondent no. 7, it was proposed to cancel the Annual Patta of the said land by initiating a violation case and to declare the land as Government land.
5. On receipt of the said report from the jurisdictional Lat Mandal, the Circle Officer, North Lakhimpur Revenue Circle; instituted a case being Re-Settlement Case No. 18/2018 and apprehending possibility of transfer of land, illegally in violation of Rule 1(2) (C) of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, proceeded to direct issuance of notice to the parties to show cause as to why the land covered by Annual Patta No. 7 should not be converted to Government land by instituting a cancellation case. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that no notice in this connection was received by him or his family members from the office of the Circle Officer, North Lakhimpur Revenue Circle. The Circle Officer, North Revenue Circle, thereafter, in the Re-settlement
The Court established that cancellation of an annual patta must adhere to principles of natural justice and due process as mandated by the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations.
An annual lease granted under statutory regulation prohibits transfer or sub-letting, rendering such unauthorized transactions unenforceable against the government. Furthermore, general policy pronou....
An order of cancellation of annual lease is permissible only when annual lease holder transfers same in violation of the conditions of annual lease.
Conversion of Annual Patta to Periodic Patta is permissible under law and government policy, especially concerning succession and not transfer.
The settlement granted to the petitioner association could not be cancelled unless found to have been contrary to the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, 1886.
Land granted under Inams Abolition Act confers ownership, which cannot be revoked without due process; arbitrary state action is unlawful.
An application for government land settlement confers no vested right. Administrative authorities may consider subsequent material facts, such as the acquisition of private land, to determine eligibi....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of upholding the integrity of legal processes, ensuring compliance with court orders, and preventing manipulation of legal procee....
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.