ORDER

Date : 02-02-2022 Heard Mr. A Ali, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. R B Bora, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the BTAD.

2. This instant writ petition has been filed challenging the communication bearing no. BTC/LR-127/2014/108 dated 30.08.2019 whereby the land which was settled in favour of the petitioner on 20.04.2017 was cancelled.

3. The brief facts of the instant case is that the petitioner which is a society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 had applied for allotment of a plot of land in favour of the petitioner society. Thereupon vide a communication dated 20.04.2017, the Secretary, Bodoland Territorial Council intimated the Circle Officer, Udalguri Revenue Circle, Udalguri that the Bodoland Territorial Council had settled a plot of land measuring 16 Bighas 0 Katha 0 Lecha covered by Dag No. 33 (Part) of Village Surbaherua, Mouza Pub- Dalgaon under Udalguri Revenue Circle in favour of the petitioner society under Udalguri Revenue Circle subject to payment of 30% of the land value as premium.

4. It was also reflected vide the said order that the land records may be corrected after realization of the premium. Subsequent thereto vide a communication dated 09.04.2018, the Circle Officer, Udalguri Revenue Circle intimated the Principal Secretary, BTC, Kokrajhar that an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand) was deposited vide various bank drafts by the petitioner society being the 30% of the premium of the total land value of Rs.4,98,096/-(Four Lakh Ninety Eight Thousand and Ninety Six). Thereupon, on 12.04.2018, the Deputy Secretary, Bodoland Territorial Council, Kokrajhar also acknowledged the amount of Rs.1,50,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand) paid by the petitioner society.

5. All of a sudden by the impugned communication dated 30.08.2019, the Secretary, Revenue Circle, Bodoland Territorial Council, Kokrajhar informed the petitioner society that the allotment made in favour of the petitioner society on 20.04.2017 was cancelled.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities have issued this impugned communication which is absolutely arbitrary and in violation of the principle of nature justice inasmuch as it is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner having been allotted the land and the petitioner society have already made the payment in respect thereto and the possession of the land has been handed over to the petitioner pursuant to the said payment, the concerned respondent authority could not have issued the impugned communication thereby cancelling the allotment made in favour of the petitioner.

7. Mr. R B Bora, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the BTAD submits that if this Court interferes with the communication dated 30.08.2019, liberty may be granted to the respondent authorities to take appropriate steps as envisaged under the law, if the respondent authorities seek to cancel the said allotment.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and given my anxious consideration to the matter.

9. The documents on records as well as the impugned communication dated 30.08.2019 clearly goes to show that vide an order dated 20.04.2017, the petitioner was settled with the land. The land having been settled and thereupon on the basis of the Annexures to the instant writ petition, it appears that the petitioner have also made payment of the premium as stipulated in the communication dated 20.04.2017. Under such circumstances, a vested right has accrued upon the petitioner in respect to the said land.

10. It is no longer res-integra that when a vested right is accrued, it is the requirement of law that to deprive a person of such vested right, it is necessary that the principle of nature justice needs to be followed. Further to that, a perusal of the impugned order also does not reflect as regards on what reasons the said settlement which had been allotted in