Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 228
THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KARDAK ETE, J
Sashi Devi Jalan W/o. Sri Iswar Prasad Jalan - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam And 3 Ors. - Respondent
WP(C) 1342 / 2022
Decided On : 23-01-2025
For the Petitioner:MR. S P CHOUDHURY, MS B DEVI,MR K BISWAKARMA Advocate
For the Respondent:GA, ASSAM, MR. D GOSWAMI, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL, ASSAM,SC, REVENUE
IMPORTANT POINT
Possessory rights under an annual patta do not confer indefeasible rights upon the holder once the land is converted to government land, and due process must be followed in eviction proceedings.
Headnote:
(A) Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 - Section 11 - Eviction proceedings - Petitioner sought to prevent eviction from land occupied since 1976, claiming rights based on a registered deed of agreement - The land was annual patta land, subsequently converted to government land - The court found no indefeasible right for settlement of the land in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing the need for due process in any eviction proceedings. (Paras 3 , 7 , 15 , 16 )
(B) Possessory Rights - The court ruled that while the petitioner has been in possession since 1976, the cancellation of the annual patta by the government limits her rights, and the government may refuse to grant settlement to the transferee. (Paras 8 , 11 , 12 )
(C) Public Purpose - The land identified for a public project under the Jal Jeevan Mission cannot be settled in favor of the petitioner. (Paras 13 , 15 )
Facts of the case:
The petitioner has occupied the land since 1976 under a registered agreement but faced eviction proceedings initiated by the government, which claimed the land for public use.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner does not have an indefeasible right to settlement of the land, and no eviction proceedings had been initiated against her as of the date of judgment.
Issues: The main issues were the legitimacy of the eviction proceedings and the rights of the petitioner over the government land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner lacks absolute rights to the land due to its conversion to government land and emphasized the importance of following due process in eviction matters.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
KARDAK ETE, J.
Heard Mr. K. Biswakarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mrs. S. Baruah, learned State counsel for the respondents No.2, 3 and 4.
2. By filing this petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities not to give effect to the impugned eviction drive initiated against her and also refrain from handing over possession of the land under the occupation of the petitioner to any other individual or organization and also to issue patta in the name of the petitioner.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is in a possession of a plot of land measuring 1 bigha 4 kathas 4 lechas under Dag No.92 and 94 situated under Village Hijuguri under Tinsukia mouza by way of a registered deed of agreement for possession which was executed on 26.02.1976 by one Birendranath Bhuyan. After acquiring possessory right, she had started living in the said land by constructing residential house. However, since the land was annual patta land, the land could not be mutated in her name and accordingly, she had applied for settlement of the land in her name. The petitioner contends that despite such application for settlement of the land, no action was taken for consideration of the settlement of the said land in her favour, instead, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia initiated non-renewal proceeding being N.R. Case No.47/1993 for conversion of the annual patta land into government land. Thereafter, vide order dated 10.10.1995, the annual patta land was cancelled and made the land as government land.
4. Mr. K. Biswakarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that since the petitioner is in the occupation and possession of the said land since 1976, she has legitimate expectation that the respondent authorities would consider the application of the petitioner for settlement of the land in her favour. However, the respondent authorities have initiated steps for eviction of the petitioner without following due process of law, which is illegal. He submits that in view of continuous possession of the said land on the strength of registered deed of agreement, the petitioner has certain rights over the land even after it is converted into government land. The respondent authorities ought to have considered the case of the petitioner for settlement as per land policy. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the respondent authorities may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for settlement in her favour in terms of the land policy of the State.
5. Mr. A. Bhattacharjee and Mrs. S. Baruah, learned State counsels have submitted that after drawing non-renewal proceeding, the competent authority on the basis of such proceeding being N.R Case No.47/1993 date 10.10.1995, cancelled the annual patta and made the land as government land. Even thereafter, it is found that the petitioner is still in illegal occupation of the said government land. The State respondents categorically have submitted that no eviction drive was conducted against the petitioner till date. But the said land has been identified for implementation of a scheme of Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation, Ministry of Jal Shakti, Govt. of India “Jal Jivan Mission”, therefore the land being the government land, would be required for the public purpose and as such, no consideration can be made for settlement of the said land in favour of the petitioner.
6. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.
7. Undisputedly, the petitioner is in possession of the land measuring 1 bigha 4 kathas 4 lechas falls under Dag No.92 and 94 situated under village Hijuguri under Tinsukia Mouza by way of registered deed of agreement executed on 26.02.1976.
