GAHC010028472022 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/1342/2022 SASHI DEVI JALAN W/O- SRI ISWAR PRASAD JALAN, R/O- A.T. ROAD, HIJUGURI, TINSUKIA TOWN, P.O., P..S AND DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.

2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TINSUKIA ASSAM.

3:THE SUPDT. OF POLICE POLICE HEAD QUARTER TINSUKIA ASSAM.

4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER TINSUKIA REVENUE CIRCLE TINSUKIA ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S P CHOUDHURY, MS B DEVI,MR K BISWAKARMA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. D GOSWAMI, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL, ASSAM,SC, REVENUE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE

JUDGMENT

Date : 23-01-2025 Heard Mr. K. Biswakarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mrs. S. Baruah, learned State counsel for the respondents No.2, 3 and 4.

2. By filing this petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities not to give effect to the impugned eviction drive initiated against her and also refrain from handing over possession of the land under the occupation of the petitioner to any other individual or organization and also to issue patta in the name of the petitioner.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is in a possession of a plot of land measuring 1 bigha 4 kathas 4 lechas under Dag No.92 and 94 situated under Village Hijuguri under Tinsukia mouza by way of a registered deed of agreement for possession which was executed on 26.02.1976 by one Birendranath Bhuyan. After acquiring possessory right, she had started living in the said land by constructing residential house. However, since the land was annual patta land, the land could not be mutated in her name and accordingly, she had applied for settlement of the land in her name. The petitioner contends that despite such application for settlement of the land, no action was taken for consideration of the settlement of the said land in her favour, instead, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia initiated non-renewal proceeding being N.R. Case No.47/1993 for conversion of the annual patta land into government land. Thereafter, vide order dated 10.10.1995, the annual patta land was cancelled and made the land as government land.

4. Mr. K. Biswakarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that since the petitioner is in the occupation and possession of the said land since 1976, she has legitimate expectation that the respondent authorities would consider the application of the petitioner for settlement of the land in her favour. However, the respondent authorities have initiated steps for eviction of the petitioner without following due process of law, which is illegal. He submits that in view of continuous possession of the said land on the strength of registered deed of agreement, the petitioner has certain rights over the land even after it is converted into government land. The respondent authorities ought to have considered the case of the petitioner for settlement as per land policy. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the respondent authorities may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for settlement in her favour in terms of the land policy of the State.

5. Mr. A. Bhattacharjee and Mrs. S. Baruah, learned State counsels have submitted that after drawing non-renewal proceeding, the competent authority on the basis of such proceeding being N.R Case No.47/1993 date 10.10.1995, cancelled the annual patta and made the land as government land. Even thereafter, it is found that the petitioner is still in illegal occupation of the said government land. The State respondents categorically have submitted that no eviction drive was conducted against the petitioner till date. But the said land has been identified for implementation