Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Devashis Baruah
Bulbuli Borgohain, D/O Lt. Biren Borgohain – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam, Represented By the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Revenue and Disaster Management Department – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Heard Mr. K. K. Mahanta, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. K. Bhuyan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. H. Sarma, the learned senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the District Administration.
2. By this common judgment, this Court proposes to dispose of both the writ petitions being WP(C) No.2639/2014 and WP(C) No.2704/2017 as the cause of action in both the writ petitions are interrelated and as the petitioner is the same.
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that she is a Rayotee (occupancy tenant) under Section 3 (17) and Chapter III of the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971 (for short, ‘the Act of 1971’) in respect to a plot of land measuring 3 bighas 2 kathas covered by Dag No.574/771(Old)/730 (New) of KP Patta No.135 of Revenue Village Paschim Boragaon under Jalukbari Mouza in the district of Kamrup (M), Assam. The land has been more specifically described to the Schedule to the writ petition, i.e. WP(C) No.2639/2014. It is the case of the petitioner that the father of the petitioner Late Biren Borgohain was the original recorded Rayotee in respect to the schedule land si
The court ruled that eviction from government land does not violate tenancy rights, and directed the Deputy Commissioner to expedite the ownership application under the Assam Tenancy Act.
Tenancy claims under the Assam Tenancy Act must adhere to statutory provisions, and civil courts have jurisdiction when administrative processes violate due diligence.
Tenancy rights established under the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971 take precedence over invalid claims based on improper sale deeds.
An Aasami lease under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is limited to a maximum of five years, and upon expiration, the rights do not transfer to heirs unless specifically provided by law. The court emphasized....
Aasami leases under U.P. law are limited to five years and cannot be inherited post-expiration, thus the petitioner had no rights over the land after the lease expired.
Delay in filing a writ petition affects its maintainability; mere possession does not create enforceable rights against state claim over khas land.
The court held that property ownership disputes must be resolved in civil courts rather than through writ proceedings when title questions are contested.
Land granted under Inams Abolition Act confers ownership, which cannot be revoked without due process; arbitrary state action is unlawful.
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
