IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that eviction without due process and cancellation of the original agreement is impermissible, emphasizing the need for adherence to legal procedures.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. N. Bharali, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners. I have also heard Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and Mr. H. Sarma, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

2. The materials on record reveals that the Petitioners herein were allotted a plot of land admeasuring 10 Bighas covered by Dag No. 235(JHA) in Part-A of Bhatkuchi VGR under Jania Mouza for manufacturing brick for a temporary period of 3 (three) years on realization of royalty @ Rs.2.50 per cubic metre and land revenue of 10 times of the highest rented class of land in that village. Pursuant to the said communication issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue (Settlement) Department, an agreement was entered into by and between the Governor of Assam through the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta as well as the Petitioners wherein it was agreed that the land described in Schedule-A to the said agreement was allotted for brick industry subject to various conditions mentioned therein. It is pertinent herein to mention that the said allotment for temporary purpose was on the basis of the Assam Land Policy, 1989 and more particularly Clause-8.

3. It further reveals that in terms with the said agreement, the Petitioners had to pay the surface rent for the area at such rate as may be fixed by the Government from time to time the land revenue and the local rate as fixed. Thereupon, the possession of the land was handed over to the Petitioners. At this stage it is however very pertinent to mention that in terms of Clause-9 of the said agreement, the DC/SDO concerned reserved the right to evict the Petitioners, if the Petitioners violated any of the stipulated conditions in the said agreement.

4. The record further reveals that the Petitioners set up their brick industry and thereupon continued to function since therefrom. All of a sudden, the Petitioners were issued a notice on 24.01.2017 under the provisions of Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 whereby the Petitioners were asked to vacate within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The Petitioners thereupon submitted representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta as well as the Circle Officer, Baghbar Revenue Circle as the latter had issued the notice. However, as nothing fructified on such representation and the Petitioners apprehended that action would be taken to dispossess the Petitioners for which the Petitioners approached this Court by filing this writ petition.

5. The record reveals that pursuant to the filing of the writ petition, this Court had issued notice and stayed the impugned notice stated 24.01.2017 on the basis of which the Petitioners were sought to be evicted. The record reveals that no affidavit has been filed in the instant writ proceedings however, in a similarly connected writ petition, an affidavit has been filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta stating inter alia that the Petitioners were temporarily permitted by the Revenue Authority for manufacturing bricks and tiles for a period of 3 (three) years subject to payment of royalty and Bedakhali Jarimana. It was however admitted that there was a written agreement executed with the Petitioners containing certain terms and conditions. In addition to that, it was mentioned that as per Clause-11 of the agreement, the Petitioners have to vacate the possession of the land after expiry of the term of the agreement without any objection. Further to that, it was mentioned that on the expiry of the term of the agreement, there was no fresh agreement executed with the Petitioners and as such, after the expiry of the term of the agreement, the Petitioners were treated and considered as stranger and unauthorized occupants of the Government P