JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

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 16th 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 the order was passed by the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 14.10.2014 in WP(C) No. 3339/2007.

(G) It is further seen that on the basis of the said proceedings which was registered as Misc Case No. 05/2014, the impugned order was passed on 27.03.2015, whereby, it was opined that the petitioner No. 1 had no possession over the water body for long years an