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.

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 since the year 1962 under the original recorded Pattadars, viz. one Khasnur Ali, S/O-Dhanu Ali and Shukhuna Sheikh, S/O- Amir Ali. On the 29.01.2000, the father of the petitioner expired leaving the petitioner as his sole legal heir. On the basis thereof, the petitioner claimed that she acquired the tenancy by way of inheritance in terms of Section 7 of the Act of 1971. The name of the petitioner was also entered in the Khatian being Khatian No.301 in place of her deceased father by affecting due correction in the record of rights. The petitioner thereupon also filed an application under Sections 23 (1) read with Section 24 of the Act of 1971 for acquiring full ownership right of the schedule land by way of paying compensation to the Pattadars as laid down in the Act of 1971. While the said application was pending before the authorities concerned, a notice was issued under Rule 18(2) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 (for short, ‘the Regulation’) stating inter-alia that the petitioner was in occupation of land without authority/sanction as per the report submitted by the Circle Officer, Guwahati Revenue Circle and the petitioner was asked to vacate forthwith failing which the petitioner shall be evicted from the land in accordance with law. The petitioner thereupon filed her reply on 27.12.2013 informing the Additional Deputy Commissioner about the existence of her tenancy rights over the schedule land and submitted copies of the Khatian and the Draft Chitha in order to establish her right, title and interest in respect to the schedule land. Upon such reply being filed, the petitioner averred in the writ petition that the respondent authorities have assured the petitioner upon seeing the reply that no action would be taken.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that upon enquiry being made the petitioner came to learn that the schedule land was acquired by the Government under the Land Ceiling Act without serving any formal notice on the petitioner and her predecessors who have been in occupation of the said land. The petitioner apprehended that the petitioner's possession would be disturbed on account of the said acquisition and the eviction notice so issued, and as such, filed WP(C) No.2639/2014 seeking various reliefs. The reliefs sought for were for setting aside the eviction proceedings initiated against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was a recorded occupancy tenant/Rayotee and further that the respondent authorities should settle the schedule land in favour of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of law and in terms with the Assam Land Policy adopted by the Government of Assam in that regard. The petitioner also sought for interim directions that during the pendency of the writ petition, no eviction