Back
KARDAK ETE
Sashi Devi Jalan W/o. Sri Iswar Prasad Jalan – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
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 f
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.
Unauthorized occupation of government land does not confer entitlement to settlement unless criteria specified by government policies are met.
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.
Ineligibility for land settlement under Clause 14.3 of the Land Policy of 1989
Non-consideration of petitioner’s application by concerned respondent authorities violates mandate of Article 14 of 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....
Long-term possession does not confer ownership rights on encroached temple land as eviction under statutory provisions is valid.
Continuous possession of government land does not confer ownership rights without legal entitlement; legal title is essential for adverse possession claims.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
