High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 2117/2006 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. CHAUDHURY JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)
Legal Reasoning
One Sri Nitya Nanda Dutta , grand son of Sri Dengar Dutta and son of one Sri Raj endra Duttta preferred this writ petition challenging the judgment and order dat ed 25.11.2005 passed by the Assam Board of Revenue in Revenue Appeal Case No. 85 RA(SR)/03. 2. The said appeal was preferred under Section 117 read with Section 151 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 against an order dated 05.02.2003 p assed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur allowing perfect p artition of a plot of land measuring 1bigha 1 katha 1 lecha. The appellant’s fat her Sri Rajendra Dutta was one of the five sons of one Dengar Dutta who was orig inally a resident of the territory now falling in Bangladesh and out of his mone y land measuring 11 bighas 4 lechas was purchased in village Moinajuli under Dhe kiajuly Mouza in the district of Sonitpur on 05.03.1948. The said land was joint ly possessed by all the sons of said Dengar Dutta after he had died and they had amicably partitioned the land by way of adjustment. Thereafter when one son Abi nash Dutta died, his legal heir filed application before the Deputy Commissioner , Sonitpur for perfect partition of the land and claimed 1 bigha 1 katha 1 lecha of land out of the 6 bighas 5 lechas of land. Accordingly Perfect Partition Cas e No. 12/2002 was registered and notices were sent to all the co-sharers includi ng the petitioners. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur thereafter pass ed an order of perfect partition on 05.02.2003 and allowed the prayer of the leg al heirs of deceased Abinash Dutta for plot of land measuring 1 bigha 1 katha 1 lecha. Aggrieved, Nitya Nanda Dutta preferred appeal before the Revenues Board. Learned Revenue Board heard the appeal on 11.01.2005 and after more than 10 mont hs passed a judgment on 25.11.2005 understandably after having missed the argume nt put forward by the respective learned counsel for the parties. It is stated a t the Bar that before the Assam Board of Revenue the learned counsel representin g the original writ petitioner produced documents including the Jamabandi to sho w that their names also did appear in the record of rights as title holder of th e land in question. But since considerable long period had elapsed, it is natura l that the learned Assam Board of Revenue did not take note of it and arrived at erroneous findings that the names of legal heirs of Abinash Dutta alone were sh own in the record of rights and the other legal heirs of Dengar Dutta was not sh own as legal heirs in the record of rights. 3. Ms. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the na mes of the writ petitioner and his predecessors were very much there in the reco rd of rights and the contention of the Private Respondents that their name alone was reflected in the record of rights was not correct. But because of non-consi deration of the said documents including the Jamabandi an error apparent on the face of record has crept in the judgment. 4. I have heard Ms. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the Private Respondent. However, Ms. M. Goswami appears on behalf of the State Respondents. 5. The learned Assam Board of Revenue (hereinafter referred to as ’the Boar d’) heard the appeal on 11.1.2005 but did neither deliver the judgment forthwith in open court nor did it fix a date for delivery of judgment. After lapse of a long period on 25.11.2005 without recording any reason as to why was the deliver y of judgment so late. It also does not appear from records as to whether the pa rties or their engaged counsel were informed about the same before such delivery of judgment was made after such an inordinate delay. In this regard the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the judgment has been vitiated by such i nordinate delay. The Board was constituted under section 3 of the Assam Board of Revenue Act, 1962. Section 13 of the said Act vested power on the Board to fram e regulations from time to time with previous sanction of the State Government. Accordingly, the Board has framed a regulations named as Assam Board of Revenue Regulations, 1963. The said regulations provide for the procedure, the Board is supposed to follow in discharging its duties. Regulation 25 deals with pronounce ment of decision and the same is quoted below:- (cid:28)25. Pronouncement of decision- When the hearing of an appeal or revision is com plete, the Board may pronounce its decision forthwith or may fix a date for the same. On the date so fixed, the decision signed by the Member(s) of the Bench co ncerned shall be pronounced in the open court. The decision may be pronounced by any of the Members where the Bench is Division or Full. (cid:29) 6. It is apparent from records that this provision has not been followed by the Board in the present case. The Board has all the trappings of a court as ob served by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shovana Maitra reported in 1971 ALR 251 and as such there is no reason as to why the duties and responsi bilities of a court in discharging its judicial function should not be applicabl e to the Board as well. The Code of Civil Procedure governing the duties of proc edure of Civil Court has similar provisions in Rule (1) of order XX for pronounc ement of judgment. It provides that a court, after the case has been heard, is d uty bound to pronounce judgment in the open court, either at once, or as soon th ereafter as may be practicable and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some other date court shall fix a date for that purpose, of which notice shall be gi ven to the parties or their engaged advocates. It is, however, provided under th e Proviso to the said rule that whenever judgment cannot be pronounced at once, endeavour shall be made by the court to pronounce the judgment within 30 days fr om the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but where it is not practicable so to do on the ground of extraordinary circumstances of the case, t he court shall fix a new date for the pronouncement of the judgment and such dat e shall not be fixed beyond 60 days from the date of hearing and invariably such fixation of date should be brought to the notice of the parties or their counse l. These provisions are devised as a matter of prudence to ensure proper adminis tration of justice which is the only concern of the courts of law. If inordinat e delay is caused in pronouncing judgment, there is likelihood that the Presidin g Officer of the court may forget the submission of the learned counsel resultin g in erroneous decision to the prejudice of the party against whom such an error is made. Moreover, such party may not know when the judgment is really delivere d and in the process his right of appeal may become prejudiced owing to limitati on. Although there is no default clause in either of these provisions i.e. Regu lation 25 of the Assam Board of Revenue Regulation 1963, or Order XX rule 1 of t he Code of Civil Procedure yet in view of the above fact that failure to comply with these provisions has potential consequence of defeating fundamental purpose of the whole exercise, the said provisions are to be deemed as mandatory. Even a Division Bench of this court in the case of Tankesh Duwara vs. Assam Board of Revenue reported in (1981)1 GLR 27 held that Clause 25 of the Assam Board Revenu e Regulation, 1963 should be scrupulously followed. Totality of these considerat ions only lead to irresistible conclusion that Regulation 25 referred to above i s a mandatory provision of law because of the consequence that may follow in def ault to comply with the same and as such the impugned decision of the Assam Boar d of Revenue has become vitiated.
Decision
7. Besides, the Assam Board of Revenue has dismissed the appeal mainly on t he consideration that name of the writ petitioner as well as his other co-share rs was not mutated in the records of rights and the names of Abinash Dutta and Digambar Dutta were only reflected in the settlement records. Obviously, this fi nding is perverse and contrary to records. So, apart from inordinate delay in gi ving its decision the Assam Board of Revenue has also failed to consider the rel evant materials available on records such as Jamabandi and as such this decision is not sustainable in law. This writ petition, therefore, is liable to be allow ed setting aside the impugned decision of the Assam Board of Revenue with the di rection to give its decision afresh in accordance with law and on perusal of the matters on record and accordingly this writ petition is allowed. The impugned o rder is set aside. 8. No order as to cost. Send back the records to the Assam Board of Revenue immediately.