High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 4995/2005 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. A.K. Sarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mrs. V.L. S ingh, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department. I have also heard Mr. N. Upa dhyay, learned State Counsel.
Decision
2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 16.7.2004 passed by the Collector, Kamrup (M) in RLC No. 364/76, by which direction was issued fo r preparation of final statement in respect of 212 Bigha 03 Katha and 08 Lechas and 143 Bigha 03 Katha and 04 Lechas as patta land in the name of National Texti le Corporation Ltd. and Assam State fertilizer & Chemicals Ltd. i.e. the petitio ner. As stated in the writ petition, the petitioner is a Government of India und ertaking company with its manufacture and production factory at Chandrapur in th e district of Kamrup (M). The company had purchased 3 grants from one Radhika Na nda Choudhury comprising of 1249.941 acres of land in the year 1959 after obtain ing necessary sale permission from the State Government. The land was mutated in the name of the company in the year 1961. Subsequently, in the year 1963, a lan d ceiling case was initiated against said RadhikaNanda Choudhury, which was disp osed of in 1967 allowing the company to retain an area of 586 bighas plus 150 bi ghas as retainable limit. 3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition being Civil Rule N o. 309/1968 and the same was disposed of by setting aside the impugned order. Di rection was issued to the Collector to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Thereafter the company was taken over as per provisions of the Sick Textile Undertaking Act, 1972 and subsequently, it was acquired under the provisions of the Sick Textile Undertaking Nationalisation Act, 1974 with effect from 1.4.197 4. 4. In view of the above position, it is the definite case of the petitioner that the provision Assam Fixation of Ceiling on land Holding Act, 1956 is inapp licable to the petitioner company. When the matter rested thus, another Land Cei ling case was initiated against the company in the year 1976, to which, the comp any raised objection including the question of jurisdiction to start the said pr oceeding. By order dated 29.6.1992, the Government of Assam in the Revenue Depar tment set aside and quashed all the orders passed in L.C. Case No. 364/76 and di rected the respondent to No. 3 to proceed denovo with the matter. However, the r espondent No. 2 allowed the company to retain 200 Bighas of land till disposal o f the case. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition being Civil Ru le No. 2758/1992. The writ petition was disposed of without interfering with the proceeding. However, it was provided that the Collector would look into the jur isdictional issue as well. Being aggrieved, the W.A. No. 610/1996 was also prefe rred. However, the order passed by the Single Judge was not interfered with. The reafter a review petition was filed, which was also dismissed. 5. The Collector, Kamrup (M) finally disposed of the L.C Case No. 364/76 on 16.7.2004 whereby the petitioner company was allowed to retain only 212 Bighas 03 Kathas and 8 Lechas of land on the basis of the report of the Circle officer, Chandrapur. According to the petitioner while passing the order, the Collector ought to have decided the question of jurisdiction with reference to applicabili ty of the Act to the petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that t he said order has been passed without providing any opportunity of being heard. In this connection statements made in paragraph-28, 29, 30, 32 and 33 of the wri t petition are quoted below: (cid:28)28. That the petitioner begs to state and submit that the Collector, while deci ding L.C. Case failed to comply with the procedural regularities and came to the findings only relying on the reports of the circle officer dated 4.4.2003 and 1 1.3.2004 without hearing the parties as per the provisions of law and giving opp ortunities of hearing after the receipt of the report of the Circle Officer and spot verification and as such suffers from lacuna and infirmity and as such agai nst the principles of law and justice. 29. That the petitioner begs to state and submit that on perusal of the record i t c=becomes apparent that the Collector did not feel it necessary to hear the pe titioner after receipt of the reports before concluding such a long pending case and disposed of the case on 16.7.2004 though it was fixed to be out up before t he Collector on 11.8.2004. 30. That the petitioner begs to state that submit that the Report of the Circle Officer suffers from lacuna as it is not based on records and he summarily prepa red the record on the basis of the physical possession i.e. the areas with the p lants and buildings of the petitioners Industry and its employees and failed to include the vacant lands under the jurisdictions of the petitioners. As the peti tioners bonafide purchased the land from its owner Sri Radhika Nanda Choudhury t hrough a registered sale deed and have been on possession since long the act of limiting the possession only to an area of 212B 03K and 08L can never be proper finding. 32. That the petitioner also begs to state and submit that while disposing of th e L.C. case the respondents failed to appreciate the observations made by the Ho n’ble Court in the Civil Rules as well as in the Writ Appeal that the respondent authorities should decide the objections of the petitioner regarding the jurisd iction and applicability of the Ceiling Act to the case of the petitioner. But t he respondents utterly failed in this regard and did not whisper a single word r egarding this aspect of applicability and jurisdiction in it’s order dated 16.7. 2004 and summarily concluded the matter. As such the order is in contradiction o f the orders and observations of the Hon’ble High Court and is bad in the eyes o f law and hence liable to be quashed and set aside. 33. That the petitioner begs to state and submit that under as the petitioner is an industry, and the land under it is exempted under the provisions of Section 2(b) of the Ceiling Act and this aspects have been raised by the petitioner time and again since 1963 form the initiation of the L.C. Case No. 205/63. The petit ioner further submits that in the year 1974 the land of the petitioner had been vested in a Central Government undertaking and fully owned by the Central Govern ment and as such is exempted from the purview of the Ceiling Act under Section 2 (1) of the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1956. But the respond ents throughout the various proceedings in respect of the land Ceiling Case fail ed to make any observation and decision as regards to the above stated grounds a nd proceeded with the L.C. Case and passed order in violation of the provisions of the Ceiling Act as well as the Nationalisation Act and thereby caused gross i njustice and damages to the petitioner. (cid:29) 6. The respondents have not filed any counter affidavit. Thus the aforesaid stand of the petitioner go unrefuted. 7. Since the petitioner had raised the question of jurisdiction to initiate Ceiling Case in view of the provision of Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Hold ing Act, 1956, it was incumbent on the part of the Collector to decide the said issue before deciding the matter on its merit. Moreover, the petitioner was also not afforded any opportunity of being heard, more particularly in respect of th e report that was submitted by the Circle Officer. As per Section 2 of the Act, the provision of the Act shall not apply to land held by State Government or by Union Government or by any local authority etc. 8. Above being the position, the matter requires fresh consideration of the Collector, Kamrup (M) and to facilitate the same while setting aside and quashi ng the order dated 16.7.2004 passed in R.L. Case No. 364/76, the matter is reman ded back to the Collector and Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) for a fresh decisi on upon hearing all the parties. 9. e no order as to costs. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicate above. There shall b