High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 1439/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A K GOSWAMI
Legal Reasoning
JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL) Heard Mr. R.Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Bhaga wati, learned State Counsel. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 06.11.2007 passed by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon which reads as under: (cid:28) ORDER Dt.6.11.2007 Seen the order of the Hon’ble High Court passed on 02/03/2007 in disposing the p etition filed by Sri Dharma Kt. Sarma, S/O Late Jadu Sarma and Hon’ble Court has directed the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon to dispose the Annex-H the represent ation dated 19.01.06 which was filed by the said petitioner. The petitioner appeared on 20.10.07 for hearing before the court and presented t he Annex-H . It is stated in the Annex-H that the petitioner had deposited the p remium for conservation of AP land before declaration of Jagiroad as a reven ue town. He further stated that the revenue village namely Teheria, Paliguri, D ayang, Chenimari, Ghumucha Habi and other village were not considered for conver sion though they deposited the required premium. So he again prayed for conversi on of AP land falls under the said villages basing on the premium already paid. I have also examined the matter that stated in the WP(C)No.271/2007 where the pe titioner prayed for conversion of AP land measuring 12B-3K-6L both homestead and cultivable land covered by patta No.89,102,111 and 118 under dag No.13,72,89,94 ,132 and 270 in various villages. The petitioner stated that his father had paid the premium @ Rs.5/- per bigha by treasury challan in the year 1970. But the report of the Circle Officer, Mayong Revenue Circle reveals that the vil lages Paliguri, Tegheria, Dayang under Gobha Mouza fall within 3KM radius of Jag iroad Revenue Town and Jagiroad Revenue Town was declared in 1968-69. The land p rayed for conversion falls within the 3KM radius of Jagiroad town so the premium to be realized @15% of the prevailing market value of the land. Heard the petitioner and he insisted upon to accept the premium @5/- , he is not willing to pay the premium @15% of the market value. So his prayer for conversi on of the AP land on the premium which was already deposited @Rs.5/- could not b e granted as it is contrary to the Govt. circular No.RRG 3/203/12 dt. 4th Dcembe r’03.Moreover, the petitioner could not clearly described and could not submit the copy of the previous petition as mentioned in his Annex-H to examine the con tent of the petition actually what he wanted. He has submitted the premium recei pt for the dag No.138 PP No.110 of village Jagiroad and dag No.72, 23 Patta No.103 of t he same village vide receipt 20 and 21 dt. 15/10/70 respectively. So it is evide nt that premium deposited after the declaration of revenue town. Hence, the Annex-H the application for consideration of previous representation
Decision
for conversion of AP land has been disposed of. Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon. (cid:29) Annexure-H referred to in the said order dated 6.11.2007 is actually dat 3. ed 19.6.2006 and not 19.1.2006. According to Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for th e petitioner, the said Annexure-H is annexed in this present petition as Annexur e-5. The said representation is as follows: (cid:28)Date: 19.6.2006 The Hon’ble Deputy Commissioner, Morigoan, District- Morigaon,Assam. Sub:-Application for reconsideration of previous representation for conversion of land outside villages of Jagiroad Revenue Town in which premium was deposit ed in the year 1970. Ref: Your conversion record No.MRS.72/89/139. Sir, With due respect I the undersigned below deposited the premium for cover sion of land before declaration of Jagiroad Revenue Town. In spite of repeated r epresentations before the concerned authority but nothing has been done till dat e. The people of revenue villages which is out side the revenue town namely Taga ina, Phaliguni, Paiang, Chanimari, Gunucha, Habi & other villages were not taken into consideration for conversion in which we have deposited the premium for co nversion. And for this reason, you should reconsider our conversion according to the said record. And for this act of kindness, I shall every pray. (cid:29) 4. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel submits that even if premium @ Rs.5/- per b igha was paid in the year 1970 and land for which conversion is prayed for is si tuated within 3 KM radius of Jagiroad Revenue Town which was declared to be a re venue town in the year 1968-69, the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner misdirecte d in relying on a Government Circular dated 4.12.03. It is submitted by him that the Addl. Deputy Commissioner ought to have considered what was the rate of con version in 1970 in respect of areas coming within 3KM radius of Jagiroad Revenue Town and this aspect of the matter was totally overlooked by the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner. It is also submitted by him that while no conversion was al lowed in respect of the petitioner, land of many similarly situated persons wer e converted from annual lease to periodic lease on deposit of premium of Rs.5/- per bigha in the same area after declaration of Jagiroad Revenue Town. 5. Mr. M. Bhagawati, learned State Counsel submits that the matter may be r emanded back to the authorities to find out what was the relevant premium to be paid for conversion of annual patta land to periodic patta land in the year 1970 in areas within 3KM radius of Jagiroad Revenue Town. He has also submitted that reading of the order does not show that this aspect of the matter was consi dered by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner. 6. It is not disputed by the petitioner that Jagiroad was declared a revenu e town in 1968-69. In Annexure-5 of the writ petition the petitioner stated that premium was deposited in 1970 by him before declaration of Jagiroad as a town. Apparently, it is not a correct statement that the premium was deposited before declaration of Jagiroad as a town. In writ petition, it is stated that premium w as paid by the father of the petitioner. Therefore, statement in Annexure-5 that premium was paid by the petitioner is also not correct. Be that as it may, the order dated 6.11.2007 does not indicate the content of Government Circular dated 4.12.03, on which reliance has been placed by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Mo rigaon. No affidavit has also been filed by the respondents. It may be true that premium @15% of the prevailing market value of the land is payable for the area falling within 3KM radius of Jagiroad revenue town. But the question is from wh ich date such rate of premium has become payable. The order dated 6.11.2007 is silent on that score. 7. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that there is need to have a fresh look in the matter. Taking that view, the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner is given liberty to file fresh representation giving nece ssary details and in the event of filing of such representation, the matter shal l be looked into expeditiously by the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon or by any ot her officer not below the rank of Addl. Deputy Commissioner, duly authorized by him, who shall pass appropriate orders as may be called for. 8. The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the above.