Approval for land settlement creates rights only upon formal approval, not during application pendency; premium must reflect current zonal valuation.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.

Heard Mr. S.K. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. G. Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue & Disaster Management Department for the respondent no. 1; Mr. R.K. Mushahary, learned Standing Counsel, BTC for the respondent nos. 2, 4 & 5; and Mr. S.Baruah, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent no. 3.

2. The subject-matter of this writ petition is a plot of land [Government khas land], measuring 1 Katha 9 Lessas, situate at Tangla Town, Mouza – Dakua Harisinga Revenue Circle, District – Udalguri, BTC, Assam [‘the subject-plot’ for short]. This is the second round of litigation in respect of the matter of settlement of the subject-plot.

3. The petitioner is the wife of one Late Diju Kumar Sarmah. It is stated that when Diju Kumar Sarmah was alive, he instituted a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 5618/2022 seeking a direction to the State respondents to grant settlement of the subject-plot in his favour. The claim was made on the ground that the family of Diju Kumar Sarmah was in occupation of the subject-plot which is a Government khas land, for a long period of time. During the pendency of the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 5618/2022, Diju Kumar Sarmah expired and after his demise, the original writ petitioner, that is, Diju Kumar Sarmah was substituted by his wife/legal representative, Dhanada Sarmah, who is also the present petitioner here and who pursued the writ petition.

4. It was urged in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 5618/2022 that the family of the petitioner was in occupation of the subject-plot since long and in view of their such long occupation, the family would be entitled for allotment/settlement of the subject-plot. It was canvassed that the original writ petitioner preferred an application for such allotment/settlement and the respondent authorities were taking a long time to process the application for allotment/settlement of the subject-plot. In the course of hearing of the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 5618/2022, it was stated that the Circle Officer, Harisinga Revenue Circle after processing the proposal for allotment/settlement in respect of the subject-plot, had forwarded the proposal along with the necessary report to the Member Secretary of the concerned Land Advisory Board for further consideration. It was, thus, contended that as the respondent authorities had not brought the process of allotment/settlement of the subject- plot to any conclusion, the petitioner had to institute the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 5618/2022 seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to process and pass necessary order on the application seeking allotment/allotment of the subject-plot.

5. In the course of hearing of the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 5618/2022, the learned Standing Counsel, BTC had submitted that the proposal of allotment/settlement in respect of the subject-plot was under process in the Land Revenue Department, BTC and a decision, in accordance with law, would be taken in that connection.

6. Taking note of the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 5618/2022 was disposed of by an Order dated 07.02.2024 with a direction to the respondent authorities to bring the proposal regarding allotment/settlement of the subject-plot processed in respect of the petitioner to a conclusion. It was further observed that the respondent authorities should bring the process to a conclusion with utmost expedition, but within an outer limit of three months from 07.02.2024.

7. It transpires that prior to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 5618/2022, the Secretary, BTC had accorded approval to the proposal for settlement of the subject-plot an