Land held under patta by a private owner cannot be occupied by government authorities without following lawful acquisition procedures, ensuring property rights are protected.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. H. Sharma, learned State counsel for the respondents. Though the Union of India was represented earlier by Mr. S.K. Medhi, CGC, however, he submits that now brief has been taken from the office of CGC by the respondent No. 2.

2. Case of the petitioner:

2.1 The petitioner firm is the owner of a Tea Estate, namely, Amchong Tea Estate, situated at Sonapur, Kamrup (M), Assam. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in the month of February 2020, the respondent No. 2, i.e., the Defence Estate Officer, Guwahati Circle, Narengi Military Station, illegally trespassed into a portion of aforesaid Tea Estate land (hereinafter referred to as subject land), measuring 10 Bighas 12 Lechas covered by Dag Nos. 648/649/650/665 of KP Patta No. 32, situated at Amchong revenue village under Panbari Mouza of Sonapur Revenue Circle in the district of Kamrup (m), without acquiring the same and started construction activities in it.

2.2 It is the further case of the petitioner that after noticing the same, when the employees of the petitioner firm asked the Defence authorities to stop such activities, the Defence authorities did not give any heed and accordingly, the petitioner firm by its letter dated 06.02.2020 (Annexure-5 to this petition), requested the respondent No. 2, either to vacate the subject land or if, requires for any public purpose, to acquire the subject land by following due procedure of law. However, by letter dated 27.07.2020 (Annexure-6 to this petition), the respondent No. 2 informed the petitioner firm that the subject land is defence land and has been acquired for defence purpose.

2.3 In the aforesaid backdrop, the petitioner then approached the respondent No. 4, i.e., the Circle Officer, Sonapur Revenue Circle to provide updated status of the subject land. After causing due field enquiry as well as after perusal of the revenue map and the relevant records, the respondent No. 4 issued a Certificate on 05.09.2020, (Annexure-8 to this petition), certifying that the subject land is standing in the name of the petitioner, i.e., Bhauram Jodhraj, but presently, the same is under possession of Satgaon (Narengi) Army Camp, i.e., under the possession of the respondent No. 2 and in such a situation, the petitioner firm by its communication dated 17.09.2020 (Annexure- 9 to this petition), requested the respondent No.2, either to vacate the subject land or to acquire the same, by following due procedure of law.

2.4 As nothing had been done by the respondent No. 2, the petitioner firm approached the respondent No. 3, i.e., the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (m), to look into the matter, but too of no avail. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is filed.

2.5 It is the contention of Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner firm that, admittedly, the petitioner is the registered owner of the subject land, inasmuch as, such contention of the petitioner firm has duly been certified by the revenue authorities and thus, valuable right has been accrued to it and as such, the subject land cannot be possessed by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, without any sanction and authority of law and without following due process of law.

3. Case of the respondent No. 2:

3.1 The respondent No. 2 is the Defence Estate Officer. The respondent No. 2 had filed an affidavit on 15.03.2021 and has taken a stand, more particularly, at paragraph 4, that as per the Military Land Register (hereinafter referred to as MLR), specified at Volume-2, Page