Back
2026 Supreme(Gau) 272
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Devashis Baruah, J.
M/S James Warren Tea Limited – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam And Rep. By Its Commissioner And Secretary To The Govt. Of Assam, Deptt. Of Land Revenue (Reforms) And ors. – Respondents
WP(C) 7376 of 2022
Decided On : 18-02-2026
For the Petitioner:Mr. Bhaskar Dutta, Senior Advocate Mr. J Das
For the Respondent:Mr. SS Roy Govt. Advocate, Ms. G Hazarika Standing Counsel
The Deputy Commissioner cannot strike off a recorded proprietor's name for lack of possession without proof of loss of interest, maintaining property rights against unlawful encroachments.
Headnote:(A) Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, 1886 - Rule 116 - Power of Deputy Commissioner - The petitioner challenged the striking off of its name from the land records. The court ruled that the Deputy Commissioner cannot remove a recorded proprietor's name solely due to lack of possession without evidence of absence of interest in the estate, affirming previous judgments. (Paras 4, 10, 11)
(B) The Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1956 - Land utilized for special cultivation is exempt from ceilings. The court emphasized the necessity for maintaining rights and preventing chaos due to encroachments. (Paras 7, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a tea company, was removed from records based on claims of non-possession, despite holding valid right and paying revenue.
Findings of Court:
The Deputy Commissioner’s order was found misconceived and quashed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Deputy Commissioner could act based on non-possession alone.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that absence of physical possession does not equate to loss of interest in the estate; the law must protect property rights against unlawful encroachments.
Result: Writ petition allowed, impugned order set aside.
JUDGMENT :
Devashis Baruah, J.
Heard Mr. Bhaskar Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. J Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and I have also heard Ms. G Hazarika, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Mr. SS Roy, the learned Government Advocate, Assam appearing on behalf of the State respondents.
2. The petitioner herein has assailed the order dated 15.07.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia i.e. the respondent No.2 whereby in exercise of Rule 116 of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, 1886 (for short, ‘the Regulation’) had struck off the name of the petitioner from the Register of Records in respect to land measuring 209 bighas 4 kathas 13 lechas covered by Dag Nos. 101/102/103/104/106/114/115/119/118 of Tea Period Patta No.1 of Pabhojan T.E. 206 No. Application under Hapjan Mouza of Doomdooma Revenue Circle of Tinsukia District (for the sake of convenience referred to as ‘the land in question’) and reverted the land back to the State Government.
3. The issue which has been raised in the instant proceedings is as to whether merely because of the fact that the petitioner is not passing the land in question, the Deputy Commissioner can resort to the powers conferred under Rule 116 of the Settlement Rules.
4. The materials on record categorically show that the petitioner is a company which owns various Tea Estates including Dhoedham Tea Estate wherein Pabhojan is a Division. The said Tea Estate originally belonged to Pabhojan Tea Company Limited. The said Tea Estate was acquired by a sister company of the petitioner namely, Warren Tea Ltd. The said Warren Tea Ltd., merged with the petitioner Company pursuant to orders passed by this Court dated 16.12.2013 in Company Pet. No.10/2013. The record further reveals that the petitioner Company name was mutated by an order dated 20.02.2015 in respect to the Tea Estate in question. The petitioner thereupon had been paying the Revenue. Be that as it may, a show cause notice was issued on 11.06.2019 in the name of M/s. Pabhojan Tea Company Ltd informing that the land in question is being used by local people for homestead and general cultivation purpose and as such, asking the petitioner to show cause as to why the powers under Rule 116 of the Settlement Rules should not be exercised.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that the purported notice dated 11.06.2019 had been issued in the name of M/s. Pabhojan Tea Company Ltd., whereas the respondent No.3 himself granted the mutation of the land in question in favour of the petitioner Company. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 15.07.2019 was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia i.e. the respondent No.2, thereby the petitioner Company name was struck off in respect to the land, in question. It is under such circumstances, the instant writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 15.07.2019 (for the sake of convenience to be referred to as ‘the impugned order’).
6. It is seen that the respondent No.2 has filed the affidavit-in-opposition and at paragraph No.13 of the said affidavit-in-opposition, it was denied that the petitioner Company was in continuous possession of the land in question. It was also mentioned that the Circle Officer, Doomdooma Revenue Circle had made a local inspection of the said land and taken photographs of the dwelling houses and collected the names of the persons occupying the said land. The Circle Officer, Doomdooma also submitted a report on 17.05.2019 wherein it was mentioned that the land in question was not under the possession of the petitioner Company but under the possession of different persons since long. In addition to that, it was mentioned that the said land in question has been kept vacant for ancillary purpose and there is a reference also being made to the provisions of the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act of 1956’).
7. At this stage, this C
