High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 1576/2005 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA This writ petition is with the following prayers: 1. To consider the case of the petitioners for settlement of the land measuring 243B and 18L covered by Dag No. 86 of Patta No. 1 of Village-Nirmal Tea Estate. 2. To make a declaration that the action on the part of the respondents No. 6 an d 7 in forcefully dispossessing the petitioners from the land to the extent of a pproximately 185 Bighas is illegal. 3. To set aside an quash the order dated 28.2.2005, by which, the earlier permis sion granted vide letter dated 1.2.2001 for transfer of the Tea Estates in quest ion to M/s. Hanuman Tea co. Ltd. was cancelled The facts which have emerged on perusal of the relevant materials are that in 19 81 a cadastral survey was conducted in respect of the Lahorighat and Nirmal Kuma r Tea Estate. The survey was completed in 1984 and it was found that there was a n area of land measuring 243B and 18L belonging to the Government in the possess ion of the Nirmal Kumar Tea Estate. On 27.8.1984, the Tea Estate submitted an ap plication for allotment of the said excess land. Based on the said application, the Revenue authority carried out survey etc. and certified that the excess land was in possession of the Nirmal Kumar Tea Estate.
Decision
While the matter rested thus, the said excess land was settled with the responde nt No. 6 by order dated 21.3.1987, a fact which allegedly came to the knowledge of the petitioner from the counter affidavit filed by the respondents No. 2, 4 a nd 5 on 11.8.2005. The said affidavit has disclosed that a plot of land measurin g 263B, 2K and 4L covered by Dag No. 86 was allotted to the police department fo r establishing the 2nd ASRF Battalion vide order dated 21.3.1987. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing a writ petition being Civil Rule No. 653/1987. The said writ petition along with Misc. case No. 737/1 987 was disposed of by order dated 3.7.1987 with the following directions and ob servations. (cid:28)We find some force in the submission made by Mr. Sarma. If the petitioner has b een in possession of what has been now found to be excess land for a period of m ore than 60 years and he has applied for settlement of the same for the purpose of his special cultivation it is for the authority to consider his application a nd not to evict him unless his application for settlement is disposed of. Even i n case of disposal of his application the petitioner should not be evicted from the land under his possession except by following the procedure prescribed by la w. We accordingly order that the petitioner shall not be evicted from the excess la nd without disposing of his application for settlement and without following the procedure prescribed by law. In the result, with the above observations and direction this petition is dispos ed of. (cid:29) While disposing of the writ petition it was brought to the notice of the Court t hat the land in question was already settled with the ASRF sometime in 1st week of May, 1987, but as noted above, the settlement was made in favour of the ASRF on 21.3.1987. Apart from the fact that the said settlement order made in favour of the respondent No. 6 way back in 1987 is not under challenge in this proceedi ng, as submitted by Mr. J. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, KAAC, in the order dated 3.7.1987, by which the earlier writ petition being Civil Rule No. 653/1987 was disposed of also having taken note of the said finding, but having not inte rfered with the same except issuing the abovequoted direction, the said position cannot be altered at this stage. Irrespective of the aforesaid position, as per the earlier direction of this Cou rt contained in the order dated 3.7.1987, apart from the fact that the petitione rs are not to be evicted from the land in question without following due procedu re, their application for settlement of the land was also required to be dispose d of. As regards the order of cancellation of the earlier permission granted on 1.2.20 01 vide Annexure-I order dated 28.2.2005 annexed to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents No. 2, 4 and 5, apart from the fact that such cancellation wa s made without putting the petitioners to any kind of notice, it is also the cas e of the petitioners that due permission was granted by the revenue authority of the KAAC towards transfer of the land to M/s, Hanuman Tea Co. Ltd. In this conn ection, Mr. D. Barua, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the An nexure-A communication dated 1.2.2001 annexed to the reply affidavit filed again st the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondents No. 2, 4 and 5. By the said co mmunication, the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department, KAAC had intimated the As sistant Revenue Officer, Diphu Circle that the KAAC was pleased to allow transfe r of land. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents No. 2, 4 and 5 and so also by the respondent No. 7 referring to the provisions of Karbi Anglong Autonomous Dis trict Council Code, Vol-I, it is the stand of the respondents that no transfer o f land is permissible in the district council except with the previous permissio n of the Executive Committee. According to Mr. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, KAAC, although the aforesaid letter referred to by Mr. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioners speaks of approval of the authority of the KAAC, but in fact , no permission was accorded by the Executive Committee of the KAAC. From the above, what has emerged is that the and in question has already stood a llotted in favour of the respondent No. 6 way back in 1987 and to be precise on 21.3.1987 and that the transfer of the Tea Estate which was affected on the stre ngth of the permission accorded vide order dated 1.2.2001 has been canceled by t he aforesaid impugned order dated 21.2.2005, without, however, putting the petit ioner to any kind of notice. As regards the direction of this Court irrespective of settlement of the excess land with the respondent No. 6 to dispose of the ap plication submitted by the petitioners for settlement of the land, the said appl ication has not been disposed of as yet. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of by setting aside and qua shing the Annexure-I order dated 28.2.2005 annexed to the counter affidavit file d by the respondent no. 2, 4 and 5 cancelling the earlier permission granted vid e order dated 1.2.2001. The matter shall go back to the KAAC for appropriate dec ision in the matter upon providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to th e petitioners. As regards the prayer for settlement of the excess land indicated above in favour of the petitioners, apart from the fact that the land has alrea dy been allotted in favour of the respondent No. 6 vide order dated 21.3.1987, a fact, which was duly taken note of by this court in the earlier round of litiga tion, but not interfered with, this court exercising its writ jurisdiction canno t issue any direction for settlement of the land with the petitioners. However, the matter is left open to the sound discretion of the KAAC authority for passin g an appropriate order on the basis of the application submitted by the petition ers. With the aforesaid direction and observations, the writ petition is disposed of.