Eviction from government land requires valid documentation of allotment; without substantiation, the claimants have no legal basis for remaining in possession.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.

All these 3 writ petitions being connected, are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment and order. The subject matter involves eviction of the petitioners from certain plots of land.

2. As per the facts projected, the petitioners were initially residing at Gorukhuti near Sipajhar and due to a flood situation in the year 1950, they had to shift from their original place of residence and had prayed to the authorities for their rehabilitation. It is projected that around 60 such families were rehabilitated in Tea Garden area, namely, Saloipara Village which was requisitioned. According to the petitioners, they were also paying certain revenues in terms of the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Rules, 1950. However, while the petitioners were in peaceful possession, they were issued notices directing for production of the documents pertaining to the ownership / possession of the land or otherwise the allotment, if any, would be cancelled. In response to the said notices, few of the petitioners had submitted documents but due to a fire, certain important documents were gutted for which the other petitioners could not submit the documents. Few of the petitioners had also approached the Civil Court by filing a Title Suit which was however withdrawn on technical grounds. Thereafter, a writ petition being WP(C)/7531/2013 was filed which was also withdrawn due to certain developments followed by filing of these 3 (three) writ petitions.

3. I have heard Shri K.K. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. N. Begum, learned counsel for the petitioners in all the three cases. I have also heard Shri H. Sharma, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, Assam, Shri A. Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department and Ms. P.R. Mahanta, learned Standing Counsel, Technical Education Department.

4. Shri Mahanta, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are in peaceful possession of the land in question and till now there is no notice directing them to vacate the land. He has reiterated that the lands were duly allotted under the Rules of 1950 and they have been paying the revenue. He has also highlighted that though the lands under the possession of the petitioners were sought to be allotted for construction of certain institutions, such constructions did not take place within the specified time and therefore, such allotment has spent its force.

5. The learned Senior Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the Rule 6 of the Rules of 1950 as per which the revenue / requisition amounts have been paid and in this connection, he has drawn the attention of this Court to the receipts of such payment enclosed to the petitions. He accordingly submits that the writ petitions may be allowed and the interim orders be made absolute.

6. Per contra, Shri H. Sharma, the learned State Counsel has raised a preliminary objection by contending that the documents which are relied upon by the petitioners are translated / typed copies and the copies of the originals have not been enclosed to any of the writ petitions. He has stated that when this aspect was highlighted, the petitioners were directed to file rejoinder affidavit annexing such documents which also have not been done. He has submitted that there are no records to indicate that any allotment of land was ever done to any of the petitioners. He has submitted that in absence of any documents, the claim that any land was allotted to the petitioners cannot be an acce