1. Ceiling proceedings under the Act — land later found private — Revenue Authorities refused eviction under Settlement Rules. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Gau) 1431
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Dhunseri Tea and Industries Ltd & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Assam, Rep. by the Commissioner and Secretary, Revenue Department, Govt. of Assam, Dispur & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 959 of 2018
Decided On : 13-07-2026
Important Points
Private lands held by a proprietor or settlement holder are outside the scope of Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules; revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to evict encroachers from such lands; such disputes are civil in nature.
Subject
Civil Law - Property Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 - Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules - Ejectment - Jurisdiction of Deputy Commissioner - Lands specified in Rule 18(2) include lands previously reserved for roads, roadside lands, grazing of village cattle, other public purposes, lands from which a person has been excluded by general or special order, government khas lands, waste lands, and estates over which no person has acquired right of proprietor, land holder or settlement holder - Private lands belonging to a proprietor, land holder or settlement holder are outside the ambit of Rule 18 - Once lands are recorded in the name of a private party, the jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities to interfere or intermeddle with possession stands ousted - Such disputes are purely civil disputes and Revenue Authorities cannot evict encroachers under Rule 18. (Paras 13-17)
(B) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 14 - Benefit of exclusion of time - Where a party has been bona fidely litigating before a wrong forum, the period during which such proceedings were pending may be excluded while computing limitation for filing a suit before the competent civil court. (Para 21)
Facts of the case:
A tea company was the owner of a tea estate. Proceedings under the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1956 were initiated. The company had no grievance against the final order but contended that possession of 277 bighas 2 kathas 3 lechas of land was inadvertently shown as excess. On a representation, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, upon direction from the High Court, found that only 216 bighas 4 kathas 5 lechas had been handed over. The records were corrected and the land was registered in favour of the tea estate. Subsequently, private individuals encroached upon the land. The company sought eviction under Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules. The Additional Deputy Commissioner declined to initiate proceedings on the ground that the land was private patta land and not covered by Rule 18. The company filed the present writ petition.
Findings of Court:
The power of ejectment under Rule 18 is limited to the types of land listed in sub-rule (2). Private lands held by a proprietor, land holder or settlement holder are not included. Once the land is recorded in the name of the petitioner company, any encroachment is a civil dispute between the petitioner and the encroachers. The Revenue Authorities have no jurisdiction to adjudicate such disputes or to take eviction action under Rule 18. The impugned order was therefore justified.
Issues: Whether the Additional Deputy Commissioner was justified in declining to exercise jurisdiction under Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules for eviction of encroachers from land belonging to the petitioner company.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Rule 18(2) specifies the categories of land over which the Deputy Commissioner can exercise power of ejectment. Private lands belonging to a proprietor or settlement holder are not among those categories. The jurisdiction of the Revenue Authorities stands ousted once the land is recorded in the name of a private party. Any encroachment is a civil dispute to be resolved by the civil court. The Revenue Authorities cannot use Rule 18 to evict persons from private lands as that would also empower them to confiscate or destroy crops and buildings on private lands, which is impermissible.
Result: Writ petition dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for the period the writ petition was pending (w.e.f. 18.04.2018 till date) while computing limitation for filing a suit before the competent civil court, if advised. No costs.
(B) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 14 - Benefit of exclusion of time - Where a party has been bona fidely litigating before a wrong forum, the period during which such proceedings were pending may be excluded while computing limitation for filing a suit before the competent civil court. (Para 21)
Facts of the case:
A tea company was the owner of a tea estate. Proceedings under the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1956 were initiated. The company had no grievance against the final order but contended that possession of 277 bighas 2 kathas 3 lechas of land was inadvertently shown as excess. On a representation, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, upon direction from the High Court, found that only 216 bighas 4 kathas 5 lechas had been handed over. The records were corrected and the land was registered in favour of the tea estate. Subsequently, private individuals encroached upon the land. The company sought eviction under Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules. The Additional Deputy Commissioner declined to initiate proceedings on the ground that the land was private patta land and not covered by Rule 18. The company filed the present writ petition.
Findings of Court:
The power of ejectment under Rule 18 is limited to the types of land listed in sub-rule (2). Private lands held by a proprietor, land holder or settlement holder are not included. Once the land is recorded in the name of the petitioner company, any encroachment is a civil dispute between the petitioner and the encroachers. The Revenue Authorities have no jurisdiction to adjudicate such disputes or to take eviction action under Rule 18. The impugned order was therefore justified.
Issues: Whether the Additional Deputy Commissioner was justified in declining to exercise jurisdiction under Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules for eviction of encroachers from land belonging to the petitioner company.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Rule 18(2) specifies the categories of land over which the Deputy Commissioner can exercise power of ejectment. Private lands belonging to a proprietor or settlement holder are not among those categories. The jurisdiction of the Revenue Authorities stands ousted once the land is recorded in the name of a private party. Any encroachment is a civil dispute to be resolved by the civil court. The Revenue Authorities cannot use Rule 18 to evict persons from private lands as that would also empower them to confiscate or destroy crops and buildings on private lands, which is impermissible.
Result: Writ petition dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for the period the writ petition was pending (w.e.f. 18.04.2018 till date) while computing limitation for filing a suit before the competent civil court, if advised. No costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- land law
- practice and procedure
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. D. Das, Sr. Advocate, Ms. N. Upadhyay.
For the Respondent:Mr. R. Borpujari, SC, Revenue, Mr. B.J. Talukdar, Sr. Advocate, Mr. P.K. Medhi.
For the Petitioner:Mr. D. Das, Sr. Advocate, Ms. N. Upadhyay.
For the Respondent:Mr. R. Borpujari, SC, Revenue, Mr. B.J. Talukdar, Sr. Advocate, Mr. P.K. Medhi.
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners argued authorities must evict; Revenue argued Rule 18 inapplicable to private lands and civil remedy required. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 )
3. Writ dismissed; Revenue under no duty to evict; petitioners may sue in civil court with limitation benefit. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )
4. Under Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules, can the Deputy Commissioner evict encroachers from private land?
No, Rule 18 applies only to lands specified in sub-rule (2) such as government khas lands, waste lands, etc., not to private lands. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 18 )
5. Does the recording of land in the name of a private party oust the jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities?
Yes, once land is recorded in the name of a private party, the Revenue Authorities have no jurisdiction to interfere with possession. (Para 5 , 16 , 17 )
6. Are bona fide litigants entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act for time spent in writ proceedings?
Yes, if they were bona fide pursuing a remedy in the wrong forum, the period of such proceedings may be excluded. (Para 21 )
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. D. Das, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. N. Upadhyay, the learned counsel for the Petitioners. Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Revenue Department and Mr. B. J. Talukdar, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. P. K. Medhi, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners assailing the order dated 31.05.2013 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Udalguri.
3. The brief facts which led to the filing of the present writ petition are that a Company, namely, Tezpore Tea Company Limited was the owner of a tea garden in the name and style of Bahipukhuri Tea Estate. Proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act of 1956’). It is apparent from the order dated 05.05.1992 passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in Civil Rule No.4866/1991 that the said Tezpore Tea Company Limited, who was the Petitioner in the said proceedings, had no grievance against the final order passed under the Act of 1956. However, their grievance was that in the course of the proceedings, possession of 277 bighas 2 kathas 3 lechas of land was inadvertently shown as excess land. It further transpires that a representation was submitted by the said Tezpore Tea Company Limited on 19.02.1990 before the Commissioner, Revenue Department, Government of Assam. On account of non-consideration of the said representation, the said Tezpore Tea Company Limited approached this Court by filing the writ petition which was registered and numbered as Civil Rule No.4866/1991. The said writ petition was disposed of vide the order dated 05.05.1992 by the learned Division Bench thereby directing the concerned Respondent Authorities to dispose of the said representation after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner therein within a period of 4 months therefrom.
4. The record further reveals that on 17.11.1992, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Darrang, Mangaldai, disposed of the said representation in pursuance to the order dated 05.05.1992 passed in Civil Rule No.4866/1991 wherein it was found that the Tea Estate in question had handed over the excess area of 216 bighas 4 kathas 5 lechas of land and not 277 bighas 2 kathas 3 lechas of land as contended by the Tezpore Tea Company Limited. Accordingly, the area of 216 bighas 4 kathas 5 lechas of land covered by Dag No.8 of No.2 W/L Bahipukhuri Bagicha was directed to be registered in favour of Bahipukhuri Tea Estate and the record of rights be corrected. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Udalguri was directed to hand over the area covered by Dag No.8 and correct the records in favour of Bahipukhuri Tea Estate. In pursuance thereto, the record of rights were corrected and an area of land admeasuring 216 bighas 0 katha 16 lechas of land were corrected and reflected in the record of rights as on 24.05.1993.
5. The record further reveals that in pursuance thereto, steps were taken by the Sub-Divisional Officer (C), Udalguri with the Circle Officer, Mazbat Revenue Circle to carry out eviction and hand over possession to the Manager, Bahipukhuri Tea Estate and report to the office.
At this stage, this Court finds it relevant to observe that once the land has become the land belonging to a Tea Company, eviction proceedings could not have been resorted to by the Revenue Authorities as the same was outside the jurisdiction of the Revenue Authorities.
6. Be that as it may, in view of the communication issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (C), Udalguri dated 22.08.1993, certain notices were issued under Rule 18(3) of the Settlement Rules, framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. The record further reveals that an organization, namely, Bahipukhuri Bagan Jana Kalyan Samiti filed a writ petition before this Court which was registered and numbered as Civil Rule No.2915/1993. It is a
