Back
2026 Supreme(Gau) 826
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI
Devashis Baruah, J.
M/s Sonarie Tea Company Private Limited - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam, Represented by the Commissioner & Secretary, to the Government of Assam, Revenue & Disaster Management Department - Respondents
WP(C) No. 6015 of 2015, WP(C) No. 1470 of 2020
Decided On : 19-05-2026
For the Petitioner:Mr. K. N. Choudhury, Senior Advocate. Assisted by Mr. A. Das and Mr. M. Das, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. R. Borpujari, S.C.
The power to alter land records due to lack of possession requires a complete cessation of all proprietary interest in the estate, rather than mere absence of physical occupation. Ownership status remains protected as long as the legal interest in the property continues.
Headnote:(A) Revenue Laws - Land Regulation - Rule 116 - Power of authorities to strike name from register - Essential condition is the loss of interest in the estate, not mere lack of physical possession - Revenue status and ownership cannot be extinguished based on use by public if the title holder remains the owner in records and continues to pay statutory dues. (Paras 11, 12, 17)
(B) Administrative Law - Scope of statutory power - Authorities cannot invoke provisions meant for cessation of interest to effectively dispossess a landowner merely on grounds of public utilization or temporary non-occupation. (Para 13, 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a landowner, challenged an administrative order that declared portions of its estate to be state-owned land. The authorities initiated proceedings based on allegations that the petitioner was not in occupation of a water body located within their land, citing public usage and the need to preserve the area for community rituals. The authorities invoked a revenue rule allowing the removal of names from land registers when a proprietor no longer maintains an interest in the estate.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the authorities misinterpreted the rule by equating physical possession of the land with the ownership of interest in the estate. The petitioner remained the legitimate title holder and continued to pay revenue. Consequently, the drastic action of converting private land to government land without observing the legal requirements of the rule was not sustainable in law.
Issues: Whether the revenue authorities were legally justified in invoking statutory powers to strike the owner's name from land records solely based on an alleged lack of physical occupation.
Ratio Decidendi: The power to strike a name from the register under the revenue rules is contingent upon the cessation of all interest in the estate, not merely the absence of physical occupation. The court reasoned that failing to differentiate between interest in the property and physical usage would lead to arbitrary land management and unfair dispossession, thus rendering the administrative order invalid.
Result: Petitions allowed; administrative order set aside; notice for infrastructure development on the disputed land interfered with.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and factual context of land dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 11) |
| 2. interpretation of rule 116 regarding possession and interest. (Para 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. improper exercise of administrative power to strike land names. (Para 17 , 18 , 20) |
| 4. quashing of illegal administrative orders and restrictive construction. (Para 19 , 21) |
JUDGMENT :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Das and Mr. M. Das, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners in both the writ petitions. I have also heard Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue and Disaster Management Department appearing on behalf of all the respondents in WP(C) No. 6015/2015 and for the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 in WP(C) No. 1470/2020. None appears on behalf of the PWD Department in WP(C) No. 1470/2020, when the matter is called for.
2. Upon hearing the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, it transpires that the outcome of WP(C) No. 1470/2020 would be dependent upon the adjudication in WP(C) No. 6015/2015. Under such circumstances, this Court takes up the first writ petition for adjudication and depending upon the decision in the first writ petition, this Court would take upon the second writ petition.
WP(C) No. 6015/2015
3. The present writ petition application was filed challenging the Order dated 27.03.2015 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Sivasagar in Misc Case No. 05/2014, whereby, the land measuring 35 Bighas 4 Kathas 10 Lechas covered by Dag Nos. 8, 9, 11 & 12 of Patta Nos. 1 and 54 of Abhoypur Mouza under Sonari Revenue Circle was made Sarkari.
CONSPECTUS OF FACTS :
4. The brief facts which led to filing of the present petition are –
(A) The fore fathers of the Managing Director/Directors of the Petitioner No. 1 company purchased a tea garden in the name and style of Sonarie Tea Estate. The Sonarie Tea Estate is situated over a plot of land covered by 34 Dags and within KP Patta No. 1 of Sonari Grant, Abhoypur Mouza, under Sonari Revenue Circle in the district of Sivasagar.
(B) It is an admitted fact that within the said Sonarie Tea Estate, there is a water body covering 35 Bighas 4 Kathas 10 Lechas, which is situated over Dag Nos. 11, 8, 9 & 12 of K.P. Patta No. 1.
(C) A Proceeding was initiated under Rule 116 of the Settlement Rules framed under Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 (for short, ‘The Regulation’) by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Sivasagar.
(D) An organisation in the name and style of Charaidew Mohkuma Tai Ahom Sangskritik Santha had approached this Court by filing a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 3339/2007, stating inter-alia that the water body, which is otherwise called the ‘Sonai Pukhuri’ was dug in the 16 century during the reign of Ahom King Gadapani. The said water body have been in use for the last 5 centuries by the Tai Ahom Community for the rituals in the Medam-Me-Phi and Jasinfa festivities.
(E) On account of certain alleged interference caused to the Petitioners and the State Authorities, the said Organisation approached this Court by filing a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 3339/2007. In the affidavit filed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Sivasagar in the said writ proceeding; it was mentioned that the pond was used for festive rituals and recreational purposes and water from ‘Sonari Pukhuri’ was also used for irrigation purposes by the local cultivators. It was also mentioned that the proceedings were initiated under Rule 116 of the Settlement Rules. The learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.10.2014, disposed of the writ petition with a direction that the proceedings under Rule 116 of the Settlement Rules be brought to a logical conclusion within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of the said order.
(F) It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners were unaware of these proceedings under Section 116, till
