THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MANISH CHOUDHURY, J
Abdul Samad S/o- Jainal Abdin And 59 Ors - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam And 5 Ors - Respondent
WP(C) / 365 / 2025
Decided On : 20-02-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ petition seeking direction for land allotment - Petitioners, claiming to be landless encroachers, sought to cancel previous land allotment to another party - Previous litigation established petitioners as opportunistic encroachers with no legal title - Court found no merit in the petitioners' claims and dismissed the writ petition. (Paras 1 , 7 , 8 , 17 )
(B) Land Policy, 2013 - Mere possession by way of encroachment does not entitle one to settlement of Government land - The petitioners' application for settlement was rejected in 1988 and the land was allotted to deserving individuals - Court upheld the finality of the previous decisions. (Paras 17 )
JUDGMENT :
The petitioners herein, invoking the extra-ordinary and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have preferred the writ petition seeking inter-alia direction to the respondent authorities to consider the application, stated to have submitted by the petitioners before the District Commissioner, Darrang on 11.03.2024. The petitioners have further sought for a direction to the State respondents to review and cancel an earlier order of allotment of land made in favour of the respondent no. 6 in the year 1989 and to allot/settle the said land in favour of the petitioners considering their possession on it for a long period.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department; and learned State Counsel were heard on 29.01.2025 and on 07.02.2024. Today, Ms. N. Boro, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. N.K. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioners; Ms. N. Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for the respondent nos. 1 & 2; and Mr. H. Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 3 & 4 are present.
3. Having regard to the issues raised in this writ petition and having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds no necessity to issue notice to the respondent no. 5 and the respondent no. 6. Rules is issued. At the request of and as consented by the learned counsel for the remaining parties, and the Rule is made returnable immediately.
4. The petitioners, sixty in nos., have joined together to institute the writ petition stating that they have a common cause of action. The petitioners have projected themselves to be landless poor people residing in parcels of land situate at Village - Panbari Habi, Police Station – Dhula, Mouza – Shyamabari, Dalgaon Revenue Circle, District – Darrang for a period of more than fifty years. The petitioners have stated that the parcels of land which are under their occupation, are about 156 Bighas 2 Kathas 4 Lessas, covered by Dag no. 75. The parcels of land under Dag no. 75 are admittedly a Government land. Out of those 156 Bighas 2 Kathas 4 Lessas, an area of 2 Bighas had been allotted to Panbari Habi Koktab Lower Primary School. The petitioners have stated that they had submitted an application before the respondent no. 3 on 11.03.2024 for granting allotment/settlement of the parcels of land which are under their occupation, in their favour.
5. Vehemently objecting to the statements, averments and projections made by the petitioners, the learned State Counsel has submitted that the instant writ petition is not be entertained in view of the previous history of litigation.
6. In view of the objection about the previous history of litigation, it appears proper to have a look at the previous litigation. Few of the present petitioners as plaintiffs, instituted a title suit, Title Suit no. 100 of 1979 before the Court of learned Civil Judge, Mangaldai by making one Benudhar Nath as the defendant, for declaration and confirmation of plaintiffs’ possession over the suit land, measuring 156 Bighas 2 Kathas 4 Kathas and for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from disturbing the plaintiffs’ possession in any manner. The petitioners have stated that the plaintiffs and the defendant entered into a compromise with a condition that the defendant or any other person of the defendant would not disposes the plaintiffs from the suit land measuring 156 Bighas 2 Kathas 4 Kathas. It emerges from the Order passed by the learned Civil Court in Title Suit no. 100 of 1979 on 02.06.1980 that an area of 500 Bighas of land was allotted to one M/s Bijoy Lakshmi Samabai Samity @ M/s Boiragijhar Samabai Samity.beyond the suit land. The suit was finally decreed on compromise on 11.06.1980. After the afore-mentioned order/decree, the petitioners submitted an application before the respondent no. 3 on 05.12.2016 seeking allotme
Possession alone does not confer entitlement to government land; prior rejections of settlement applications by the state are binding.
When there are two competing claims, one rooted in public interest and another relates to the protection of the rights of the individual, the cause of the public interest must be considered as overwh....
The court ruled that eviction without a hearing violates the principles of natural justice and Article 21 of the Constitution.
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 settlement claim must be substantiated with relevant documents in a summary proceeding.
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.