IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that historical land rights must be respected and due process followed in eviction proceedings under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation.

JUDGMENT :

Devashis Baruah, J.

Heard Mr. R.J. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and Ms. S. Baruah, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

2. The Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 herein and their family claimed to be residing in the Dag Nos. 568, 573, 582, 613 of K.P. Patta No.62 of Village Kachutali Pathar, under Mouza Sonapur within Sonapur Revenue Circle in the District of Kamrup (M). They claimed that they have inherited the said lands from their father/grand-father and the predecessor-in-interest of Late Mohabbat Ali and Late Uwaidullah Dullah respectively who originally resided within the declared Tribal Belt area of Sonapur (as it was then) as non-Protected Backward Class person since 1923-24 much prior to the notification constituting the said area as the Tribal Belt.

3. The Petitioner Nos. 3 to 6 and their families are presently residing in Dag No.560, 571, 596, 597, 601, 609, 611, 612, 641, 642, 672, 673, 675, 676 and 684 of Patta No.29 upon inheriting the said lands from their father/grand-father and their predecessor-in-interest of Late Khurshed Ali who was originally permitted to reside within the declared Tribal Belt area Sonapur (as it then was) as non-Protected Backward Class who were previously residing in the Belt areas since 1923-24. It is the further case of the Petitioners that subsequently, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners were issued the Khiraj Patta on 11.05.1965.

4. The petitioners have assailed the general notice dated 13.09.2024 issued by the Circle Officer, Sonapur Revenue Circle, Kamrup (Metro) District whereby the land mentioned in the said notices, i.e. Myadi Patta No.1 to 202 and Eksonia Patta No.1 to 87 have been held to be under unauthorized and illegal possession of the people other than the protected Class as per Chapter-X of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 (for short, ‘the Regulation’). Under such circumstances, all the inhabitants of the said land mentioned in the notices were directed to vacate the land within three days of service of the notice.

5. The petitioners herein claimed that they have rights over the land under their possession wherein they were initially issued Annual Pattas in the year 1923-28 and thereupon have been issued Periodic Pattas. It is the case of the petitioners that they have rights over the land even before the land were declared to fall under Chapter-X of the Regulation vide the Government notification number RD.75/46/172 dated 27.02.1950, and as such, the summary manner in which the respondent authorities have resorted to evict the petitioners who have been enjoying rights over the land almost for hundred years is absolutely arbitrary, unreasonable as well as in violation to the provisions of Section 165 (3) of the Regulation. It is also very relevant to take note of that in the instant writ proceedings various documents have been enclosed to show that the petitioners have rights over the lands as contented by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

6. Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned Standing counsel for the Revenue Department per contra, submitted that in terms of the notification dated 27.02.1950, the Revenue and Settlement Department of the Government of Assam under the Orders of the Governor of Assam had constituted the Tribal Belt in terms with Chapter-X of the Regulation. Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned Standing counsel further submitted that Chapter-X of the Regulation is a very special Chapter in order to protect certain Classes who, on account of their primitive conditions and lack of education or material advantages, are incapable of looking after their welfare insofar as such welfare depends upon their having sufficient land for their maintenance. Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned Standing counsel submitted that in terms of Section 164 (A) and 164 (B) of the Regulation, stringent co