An application for government land settlement confers no vested right. Administrative authorities may consider subsequent material facts, such as the acquisition of private land, to determine eligibility under land policies. Public interest in preserving government land for public purposes takes precedence over individual claims of long-term unauthorized possession.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.

1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred against an Order dated 29.09.2014 passed by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue & Disaster Management Department [the respondent no. 1] whereby the claim made by the petitioners for settlement of a parcel of land, described herein below, measuring 7 Bighas 1 Katha 17 Lessas, in their favour has been rejected. The petitioners have also sought for a direction in the nature of Mandamus to the respondent authorities to restrain or forebear them from giving effect to the resolution passed by the Land Advisory Committee, Hojai whereby the allotment of land to the petitioners had been rejected.

2. The parcel of land in respect of which the petitioners have claimed settlement is a parcel of land measuring 7 Bighas 1 Katha 17 Lessas located in Village – Pachim Jaruni, Mouza – Namati, District – Nagaon. The parcel of land [hereinafter referred to as ‘the subject-plot’, for ease of reference] comprises of an area measuring 3 Bighas 3 Kathas 5 Lessas in Dag no. 120 and 3 Bighas 3 Kathas 12 Lessas in Dag no. 121 located in Revenue Village - Pachim Jaruni, Mouza – Namati, District – Nagaon.

3. The petitioners are six in nos. and they are : [i] Ismail Ali, [ii] Younus Ali, [iii] Latfur Rahman, [iv] Atabur Rahman, [v] Hijfour Rahman and [vi] Samsul Haque, who all are sons of one Abdul Aziz and all the petitioners are also residents of Village – Pachim Jaruni, Mouza – Naumati, District – Hojai [earlier part of District – Nagaon], Assam.

4. There were several rounds of litigations earlier. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court by way of three writ petitions, Civil Rule no. 3969/1991, Civil Rule no. 1433/1996 and W.P.[C] no. 7692/2005.

5. It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that they are in occupation of the subject-plot since more than 25 years at the time of institution of the present writ petition. A part of the subject-plot is being used as homestead purposes by the petitioners and the remaining part is being used for the purpose of growing vegetables, etc. It has been pleaded that long and continuous possession of the subject-plot since 1995 has ripened into title in respect of the subject-plot in favour of the petitioners.

6. From the materials on record, it has emerged that the petitioners submitted application before the Sub-Deputy Collector [SDC], Hojai on 11.01.1985 for settlement of the subject-plot and the SDC, Hojai submitted a Report on 30.04.1985 making recommendation for settlement of the subject- plot in favour of the petitioners. On the other hand, the Sub-Divisional Officer [SDO], Hojai had served an Eviction Notice dated 13.05.1985 upon the petitioners in connection with Encroachment Case no. 14/1985 for eviction of the petitioners from the subject-plot. An appeal preferred against the Eviction Notice was dismissed by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner on 25.06.1985. Thereafter on 09.08.1985, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Assam Board of Revenue under Section 147, Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 against the Order dated 25.06.1985 of the Deputy Commissioner. By an Order dated 09.10.1985, the Assam Board of Revenue stayed th