Reserved grazing land cannot be settled for individual claims according to Supreme Court guidelines, ensuring preservation for community use.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

1. Both these two writ petitions being connected, are taken up for an analogous hearing and are disposed of by this common judgment and order. The claim in these 2 writ petitions is with regard to settlement of land.

2. So far as WP(C)/3550/2020 is concerned, the relief prayed for is extracted hereinbelow:

“In the premises aforesaid it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this petition call for the records and issue Rule, calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why;

(A) a writ of Mandamus should not be issued directing to take necessary step for allotment/settlement in favour of the petitioners on the land covered by Dag No.537/454 in Ghugubari Grazing Reserve under Barnagar Revenue Circle in Barpeta district;

(B) a writ of Mandamus should not be issued directing the Respondent No.3 to do needful in compliance of the direction of the Respondent No.1 and 2 vide letter dated 6-5-2015 and 26-5-2015;

(C) any such other or further order should not be issued as may be deemed fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

During pendency of the writ petition the petitioner may be allowed to continue their possession on the land covered by Dag No. 537/454 in Ghugubari Grazing Reserve under Barnagar Revenue Circle in Barpeta district.”

3. 59 nos. of petitioners have joined together in this petition, with a claim for settlement of land. It is projected that the petitioners are erosion affected and in the year 1967, they were settled in a grazing reserve. Thereafter steps were taken for settlement, which was, however, not finalized. Accordingly, on 08.01.2014, an application was submitted for finalizing such settlement and such application was forwarded by the Department to the Deputy Commissioner, Barpetavide communication dated 06.05.2015. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta accordingly had directed the Circle Officer, Barnagar Revenue Circlevide communication dated 26.06.2015, to take steps in accordance with law. However, the matter was not taken forward and therefore, the instant petition has been filed.

4. On the other hand, so far as WP(C)/7370/2023 is concerned, 32 nos. of petitioners have joined together in this petition. It is contended that in April 1975, allotment of land was made in the said area to the petitioners to form an Agricultural Farming Corporation (sic). Prior to that, the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup had issued a communication to the Additional Deputy Commissioner dated 11.02.1971 to make the settlement. It has been clarified at that relevant time, the present district of Barpeta was part of the Kamrup. The petitioners have also relied upon an order dated 03.11.1986 passed by the Executive Magistrate in a proceeding under Section 145 of the CrPC, which was instituted by one of the petitioners against another, who is a petitioner in the other writ petition. The same was with regard to land measuring 106 Bighas. By the aforesaid order, the learned Executive Magistrate had declared possession in favour of the petitioner. The opposite party had filed a revision petition, which was, however, dismissed with an observation that the land was de-reserved.

5. The petitioners have also relied upon a petition dated 22.08.1984, along with which a list of persons who were allotted land, was enclosed. The petitioners had also applied for grant of Patta and vide communication dated 09.12.2014, the Additional Deputy Commissioner had directed the Circle Officer to de-reserve the land and to submit field v