No settlement of Government land for brick kilns without temporary permission from the Government, supported by applicable land policies and regulations.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.P. Roy the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. P.R. Mahanta, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and Mr. N. Das, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

2. The petitioner herein has assailed the order dated 30.05.2014 passed by the respondent No. 2 and has further sought for directions that the respondents should not prohibit the petitioner from operating the brick kiln pursuant to the consent to operate dated 12.02.2014 issued by the Pollution Control Board, Assam.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is in possession and occupation of a plot of land admeasuring 35 Bighas 1 Katha 1 Lecha as described in Schedule A to the writ petition wherein the petitioner has been running a Brick Industry in the name and style of M/s Narayan Brick Field for the last 30 years. In addition to that, the petitioner also has a patta land admeasuring 11 Bighas 18 Lechas described in Schedule B to the writ petition, wherein the petitioner has fixed a chimney and brick kiln. The land described in Schedule A to the writ petition is admittedly a Government land.

4. On 15.04.2009, the petitioner submitted an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) seeking settlement of the land described in Schedule A. It is the case of the petitioner that instead of taking steps regarding the application filed by the petitioner for settlement, the Respondent Authorities on 28.02.2014, served a notice under Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 read with Sections 165(1), 165(2), and 165(3) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 (for short “the Regulation”) in Encroachment Case No. 3/2014. The notice was issued on the basis of a report submitted by the Circle Officer, Chandrapur Revenue Circle stating that the petitioner was in occupation of a plot of land measuring 30 Bighas 4 Lechas covered by Dag Nos. 27, 28, 29, 36, and 37 without any authority, and therefore directed the petitioner to vacate the said land, failing which steps would be taken for eviction.

5. The petitioner, therefore, submitted an objection on 03.03.2014 before the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M), against the said notice. The petitioner also informed the authority that the petitioner’s application for settlement was pending and accordingly submitted a representation and objection in respect to the Schedule A land, from where the petitioner’s brick manufacturing process were being carried out. It further appears that the petitioner thereupon approached this Court by filing a writ petition which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No. 1196/2014 challenging the notice dated 28.02.2014 issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M).

6. This Court, vide an order dated 05.03.2014 disposed of the said writ petition by directing the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) to take on record the representation submitted by the petitioner on 03.03.2014 and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 2 (two) months and till then to maintain status quo.

7. It is alleged in the writ petition that the petitioner thereupon submitted two representations dated 05.03.2014 and 20.05.2014. It is also alleged that, on 21.05.2014, one Smt. Sushmita Bora, an officer attached to the Circle Officer of Chandrapur Revenue Circle came to the petitioner’s land and threatened to demolish the labour sheds and other structures. However, in view o