Tenancy claims under the Assam Tenancy Act must adhere to statutory provisions, and civil courts have jurisdiction when administrative processes violate due diligence.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. A. Dhar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in both the Appeals being RSA No. 79/2014 and RSA No. 80/2014. I have also heard Mr. B.D. Deka, the learned counsel; Mr. B.N. Sarma, the respondent-in-person and Mr. N. Borah, the learned counsel representing the respondents in both the Appeals.

2. Taking into account that the issues involved in both the Appeals and the substantial questions of law so formulated by this Court in both the Appeals are the same and further this Court having heard both the Appeals together, both the Appeals are taken up for disposal by this common judgment and order.

3. The records reveal that vide an order dated 12.07.2016, commonly passed for both the Appeals, the Appeals were admitted by formulating 4 (four) substantial questions of law. The same being relevant are reproduced herein under:

“ 1. Whether an occupancy tenant under the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971 whose name is duly entered in the Khatian Patta can be ejected from the land under his occupation dehors the provisions prescribed by the Section 51 of the said Act, 1971?

2. Whether the Civil Court is vested with the jurisdiction to nullify the entries made in the records of rights and in the matter of maintenance of records of rights notwithstanding the bar imposed under Section 66 of the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971?

3. Whether under the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971, an occupancy tenant enjoys a permanent, heritable and transferable rights and use of occupancy in the land of his holding?

4. Whether in the absence of any contrary evidence available on records, the Court is obliged to draw presumption in respect of correctness of the entries made in the revenue records maintained by the revenue authority?”

4. It further transpires from the records that on 09.08.2022, this Court framed an additional substantial question of law in both the Appeals, which reads as under:

“In RSA No. 79/2014 Whether the suit was maintainable without the State of Assam or the authority granting ownership to the defendant vide the order dated 09.05.2023 in TR Case No. 2/2002-2003, made a party in the suit?

In RSA No. 80/2014 Whether the suit was maintainable without the State of Assam or the authority granting ownership to the defendant vide the order dated 09.05.2023 in TR Case No. 1/2002-2003, made a party in the suit?”

5. The question arises for this Court to adjudicate is, as to whether, the substantial questions of law so formulated as noted above by this Court in terms with Section 100(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “the Code”) are involved in the instant Appeals.

6. For deciding the same, this Court finds it pertinent to take note of the brief facts which led to the filing of both the Appeals before this Court.

RSA No. 79/2014

7. One Sarbananda (since deceased) was the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 07/2008. The name of late Sarbananda was included in the re-settlement operation of 1958-65 in respect to the suit land specifically described in Schedule ‘A’ to the plaint. Upon the death of late Sarbananda, his 4 (four) sons namely Harendra Nath Sarma, Surendra Nath Sarma Mahendra Nath Sharma and Satish Chandra Sarma being the heirs of late Sarbananda, inherited the land as described in Schedule ‘A’ to the plaint which admeasured 21 Bighas 2 Kathas 15 Lechas. The names of the 4 (four) sons referred to above were recorded in the revenue rec