The State is obligated to demarcate and mutate land settled in favor of an individual, particularly when the settlement occurred prior to any subsequent administrative notification reclassifying the land as waste ('Hola') land.

ORDER

Heard Mr. M. K. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. D. Bora, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G. Hazarika, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent no. 1 as well as Mr. J. Handique, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent nos. 3 to 5.

2. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner’s father, namely, late Rakhal Chandra Ghosh was settled with 2 Kathas of land, covered by Dag No. 1266 under Mouza Mahabhairab of Tezpur Town Part-II on payment of Rs. 44,444/- on 21.02.2002. It is the grievance of the petitioner that even after settlement, neither the name of the father of the petitioner nor the names of the legal heirs of the deceased father have been mutated in respect of the aforesaid land. It is contended that while the matter was pending at that stage, a notice was issued to the petitioner, who is the daughter of the settlement holder, i.e., late Rakhal Chandra Ghosh for eviction. The petitioner, being aggrieved by such eviction notice, approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 5436/2022. After considering the aforesaid writ petition, on a consensus arrived at by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition was disposed of by providing that the respondent authorities shall not disturb the possession of the petitioner over the land measuring 2 Kathas, which was settled with the deceased father of the petitioner under the Settlement Order dated 18.08.2000.

3. Since the petitioner is in possession of the aforesaid land and no demarcation of the land as well as mutation and formal handing over of the land was not carried out by the respondent authorities, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying for a direction to the respondent authorities, particularly the respondent no. 5 to demarcate the boundaries of the parcel of the land covered by Dag No. 1266, belonging to the petitioner after settlement and thereafter, to correct the land records suitably.

4. It is seen that an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the State respondents in the instant case, taking stand that the land which was settled in favour of the father of the petitioner under Dag No. 1266 had been declared to be a ‘Hola’ land (waste land formed by running water), in terms of Settlement Rules made under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886.

5. To that aspect, the respondent authorities have relied on a notice dated 15.10.2015, which reveals that with the approval of the Revenue Department, certain areas were declared ‘Hola’ land with an object to maintain environmental balance and free flow of water. Therefore, the respondent authorities have taken a stand that the petitioner’s land comes under the aforesaid land which has been declared as ‘Hola’, wherein the petitioner is in occupation of 1 Katha land. However, it is also seen that the petitioner’s land was settled in favour of her late father way back in the year 2000 and the declaration of ‘Hola’ land vide notification, was issued on 15.10.2015, much after the settlement of the land of the petitioner against her deceased father.

6. In view of the aforesaid situation, this Court, vide order dated 07.04.2025, passed the following order: -

“5. In the considered opinion of this Court, the affidavit is not clear as regards actual status of the land of the petitioner inasmuch as, there are 4 Kathas 5 Lechas of land under Dag No. 1266, which was declared to be Hola (waste land formed by running water). Therefore, the issue arises before this Court is