Judgment · High Court · 2012

The present writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 12.9.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P(C) No.875 o f 2001 dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant which challenged the order dated 10.1.2001 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Gove rnment of Assam, Revenue (S) Department by which the proposal submitted by the D eputy Commissioner, Tinsukia for grant of lease of 49 bighas 0 kathas 15 lechas of land in favour of the petitioner for special cultivation of tea was rejected. The petitioner filed by the aforesaid writ petition claiming to be an educated unemployed youth. It is the case of writ petitioner/appellant that he had occupi ed government waste land measuring 49 bighas 0 kathas 15 lechas covered by Dag N o.3, 4, 13 and 55 under Makum Mouza sometime in the year 1993 and invested a con siderable amount of money for making the land suitable for tea cultivation and p lanted 75,000 Nos. of tea bushes over the said land. The writ petitioner/appella nt claims that after occupation of the said land, he had been paying necessary r evenue. Thereafter, in the year 1998, he applied for settlement in respect of th e said land by making necessary application claiming that he is an educated unem ployed youth and he had utilized the said land for tea plantation under his occu pation since 1993. The writ petitioner/appellant states that pursuant to his applic ation for settlement of the said land in his favour, the Circle Officer, Margher ita Revenue Circle, made the necessary enquiry and forwarded his report to the S ub-Divisional Officer, Margherita stating that the writ petitioner/appellant ha d been in occupation of the said land and had been paying revenue and the said l and is not a reserved land and not within the tribal belt. On the basis of the a foresaid report, the Land Advisory Committee of Margherita in its meeting held on 3.3.2000 after necessary consideration, proposed for settlement of the said land in favour of the writ petitioner/appellant. The said proposal/recommendatio n made by the Land Advisory Committee, Margherita was in turn forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia on 15.12.1998 to the Secretary to the Government o f Assam, Revenue (S) Department, recommending for making settlement of the afor esaid government land measuring 49 bighas 0 kathas 15 lechas covered by Dag No.3 , 4, 13 and 55 under Makum Mouza in favour of the writ petitioner/appellant for cultivation of tea. The petitioner/appellant contends that even though such reco mmendation for settlement in his favour was made, there was no response from th e concerned authorities and as such, he visited the office of the Secretary to t he Government of Assam in the Revenue (S) Department, Dispur on 9.2.2001 and he came to know that the proposal submitted for settlement of the land in his favo ur was rejected by a letter dated 10.1.2001. The petitioner states that as he co uld not obtain a copy of the same in spite of his request to the authorities to make available a copy of the same, he approached this Court by filing a writ pet ition, being, W.P(C) No.875 of 2001 without annexing the aforesaid letter dated 10.1.2001 and obtained an interim order from this Court directing the authoriti es not to evict the petitioner from the land in question. Thereafter, after obta ining a copy of the said letter dated 10.1.2001, the petitioner filed the presen t writ petition being W.P(C) No.875 of 2001. The main contention of the writ pet itioner before the learned Single Judge was that he was in possession of the gov ernment waste land since 1993 and after making it cultivable by investing a huge sum, planted 75,000 Nos. of tea bushes. The Land Advisory Committee, Margherita , after considering the necessary report submitted by the concerned authorities, had approved for settlement of the said land in favour of the writ petitioner which was duly forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was an educated unemployed youth and was entitled to the settlement of land which he had developed, as per recommendation made by th e Land Advisory Committee, Margherita as stated above. The State authorities filed their affidavit-in-opposition contes ting the claim of the writ petitioner. It is the stand of the State Government t hat the recommendation of the Land Advisory Committee, Margherita was not bindin g upon the State Government and the State Government had rejected the proposal f or settlement of land in favour of the petitioner as the said proposal was contr ary to the prevailing land policy of the State. The State respondents also state d in their affidavit-in-opposition that as per report of the Circle Officer, Mar gherita Revenue Circle, the writ petitioner was not unemployed youth and there i s nothing to show that the writ petitioner belongs to below poverty line (BPL) c ategory and as per Government policy for special cultivation, the quantum of lan d is 30 bighas only whereas the petitioner had encroached upon 49.15 bighas of g overnment land. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties dismissed the aforesaid writ petition. The learned Single Judge took note of the prevailing G overnment policy regarding settlement of land. The learned Single Judge also on the basis of the records available noted that the petitioner is a trader by pro fession and is neither a landless nor educated unemployed youth and observed tha t under the policy, indigenous landless educated unemployed youth are entitled f or consideration for settlement. The learned Single Judge observed that even th ough as per policy, only 30 bighas of land could be settled, the proposal made i n favour of the petitioner was for an area of 49 bighas which is more than the p ermitted limit. The learned Single Judge also observed that the proceeding of th e Land Advisory Committee, Margherita is merely recommendatory in nature and se ttlement of Government waste land is to be strictly in accordance with the norm s in force at the relevant point of time and the materials on record revealed th at the petitioner is an employed person and only a landless unemployed youth i s entitled to the benefits under the land policy. The learned Single Judge also held that these are question of facts which are to be determined by the State a uthorities on the basis of materials on record and this Court sitting as a writ Court would not interfere with the conclusion reached by the authorities as this Court is primarily concerned with the decision making process and not with the correctness or otherwise of the decision and observed that there was no element of arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the decision making process and accordin gly, concluded that the decision of the State Government as reflected in the ord er dated 10.1.2001 does not require to be interfered with and accordingly dismis sed the said writ petition. An affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the Deputy Commiss ioner, Tinsukia in the present proceeding on 28.6.2002 wherein it has been state d that the petitioner was an unemployed youth at the time the proposal for sett lement of the land in his favour was sent to the Government in the year 1998. I t was also stated that the father of the writ petitioner was holding the post of Goanburah since 14.7.1993 and as per information collected , the writ petitione r/appellant is engaged as a tea grower and has bought tea leaves factories and e ngaged in the business of tea with his family members. It was also stated that t hat in 1996 a plot of land measuring 358bighas 0 katha 0 lechas covered by Dag N o.69/236 and others of periodic patta No.42 was settled in favour of M/s Longto ng T.E. of which the proprietor/owner is Sri Dwarika Prasad Goyal, who is the fa ther of the writ petitioner/appellant. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Settlement of government waste land cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Suc h settlement has to be based on the rules and regulations and the policy decisi on of the Government prevailing at the relevant time. As evident from the record , the said policy was mainly meant for the indigenous growers who come from belo w poverty line and who are educated unemployed youth. Further, as per the State land policy , the maximum ceiling for settlement for special cultivation is 30 bighas whereas admittedly the petitioner was in occupation of more than 30 bigha s of land and the Land Advisory Committee, Margherita also recommended for settl ement of the land measuring 49 bighas 0 kathas 15 lechas Dag No.3, 4, 13 and 55 under Makum Mouza for tea cultivation which is undisputedly beyond the quota of the land policy. The learned counsel appearing for the State respondents has al so placed on record the communication dated 23.9.1994 from the Secretary to the Government of Assam addressed to all the Deputy Commissioners, Sub-Divisional O fficers and Settlement Officers. Relevant portions of the said communication may be reproduced hereinbelow:- (cid:28)While allotting land to small indigenous growers for special cultivation, prefe rence should be given to:- i) ii) iii) Provided such local youths do not have land in their names or any member of thei r families and have taken special cultivation as a means of livelihood. (cid:29) Indigenous Youths comings from the families below poverty line. Other indigenous educated unemployed youths. Co-operatives of indigenous unemployed youths. The aforesaid communication which is consistent with the stated land policy makes it clear that preference is to be given to indigenous youths c oming from the families below poverty line who are educated and unemployed, refe rence of which has already been made by the learned Single Judge. The affidavit filed on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia also indicates that the wri t petitioner/appellant is presently engaged as a tea grower and bought tea leave s factory and engaged in business of tea with his family members and that alread y a huge area of land of 358bighas had been already settled in favour of a tea e state of which the petitioner’s father is the proprietor/owner. Therefore, in vi ew of the materials on record, the decision of the State Government to reject th e claim of the writ petitioner/appellant for settlement of the land on the grou nd that the proposal submitted on his behalf is not consistent with the Governme nt policy of allotment of land to educated unemployed youth does not seem to be unreasonable or irrational. In view of the above, we are also of the view that t he finding of the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference from th is Court. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.