Debajit Sarma vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 2983 Gua

                                                                      Page No. 1/4

GAHC010182832020




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                 Case No. : WP(C)/5509/2020

            DEBAJIT SARMA
            S/O- LT. GOLAP SARMA @ GOLAP CH. SARMA, R/O- LAKHIMI PATH,
            MAIDAMGAON, P.O. BELTOLA, P.S. BASISTHA, GHY-28, DIST.- KAMRUP
            (M), ASSAM

            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
            REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY., GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPTT. OF REVENUE
            AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT, DISPUR, GHY-06, DIST.- KAMRUP (M),
            ASSAM

            2:THE DIRECTOR
             LAND RECORDS AND SURVEYS ETC.
            ASSAM
             RAJAH BHAWAN
             RUPNAGAR
             GHY-32
             KAMRUP (M)
            ASSAM

            3:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
             GUWAHATI
             DIST.- KAMRUP (M)
            ASSAM
             PIN- 781001

            4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
             DISPUR REVENUE CIRCLE
             GHY-29
             KAMRUP (M)
            ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. S BARMAN
                                                                                       Page No. 2/4


Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE


                                     BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

                                             ORDER

Date : 22-11-2021

Heard Mr. S. Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. P.S. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue and Disaster Management Department for the respondent no. 1 and Mr. K. Goswami, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4.

2. The petitioner has claimed that he is an absolute owner of a plot of land measuring 2 Kathas and 15 Lessas, covered by Dag no. 8 [old]/17 [new] & Patta no. 1 [old]/5 [new], located in Village-Basistha Mandir [Basistha Non Ke], Mouza-Beltola, District-Kamrup [M], Assam ['the subject-plot', for short]. It has been averred that the subject-plot was purchased by him vide a registered sale deed being Sale Deed no. 8674/2003 dated 15.03.2003 [Annexure-A to the writ petition] from the original pattadars. After purchase, the subject-plot has been mutated in his name in the concerned revenue records and a mutation certificate dated 21.10.2013 [Annexure-B to the writ petition] has been issued in his favour by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Guwahati. Since then, he has been paying land revenue regularly. When the Forest Department restrained the petitioner from taking possession of the subject-plot in the year 2003, the original pattadars from whom the petitioner had purchased the subject-plot, instituted a title suit being Title Suit no. 39/2004, which was subsequently re-numbered as Title Suit no. 297/2006, before the Court of learned Civil Judge I, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. The said title suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs i.e. the original pattadars of the subject-plot by a judgment and decree dated 08.01.2007 [Annexure-E to the writ petition]. The suit was decreed to the effect that the plaintiffs therein had right, title and interest over the Schedule-A land of the suit and the possession in respect of the Schedule-A land of the plaintiffs therein was confirmed. As has been noted above, the plaintiff therein was the vendors, who sold the subject-plot to the petitioner. Against the said judgment and Page No. 3/4

decree dated 08.01.2007, the State of Assam went on appeal before the Court of Additional District Judge, No. 2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati by way of a title appeal, Title Appeal No. 13/2007. The said title appeal came to be dismissed by the appellate court by a judgment dated 23.12.2015 [Annexure-F to the writ petition]. Thereafter, the petitioner filed applications before the respondent no. 4 for demarcation of the subject-plot. The petitioner has claimed that he has submitted applications on 22.05.2018 and also on 03.06.2019 [Annexure-G to the writ petition] by annexing the copy of the sale deed, a copy of the judgment passed in the title appeal and his earlier application dated 22.05.2018. When nothing was done pursuant to those applications, the petitioner stated to have preferred a complaint/objection dated 05.12.2020 before the respondent no. 3 [Annexure-H to the writ petition]. When no action was found to have been taken either by the respondent no. 3 or by the respondent no. 4, the petitioner has preferred this application seeking appropriate direction.

3. On 09.11.2021, this Court noticed of the fact that the demarcation of land has been declared as a notified service under Section 4 of the Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012. As per Section 5 of the said Act, every eligible person shall have the right to obtain the services in accordance with the Act within the time bound period as notified under Section 4. As per sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act, the Designated Public Servant is obligated to provide the notified services to the eligible person within the stipulated time limit and as per sub-section (1) of Section 7, the stipulated time limit shall start from the date when the application for obtaining a required notified service is submitted to the Designated Public Servant or to a person sub-ordinate to him authorized to receive the application. As per sub- section (2) of Section 7, the Designated Public Servant on receipt of an application under sub- section (1) shall, within the stipulated time limit, provide the notified service or reject the application and in case of rejection of application, he shall record the reasons in writing and communicate to the person making the application inter alia the reasons for such rejection.

4. As the Circle Officer has been Designated Public Servant to extend the notified service of demarcation of land to a citizen, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate was asked to obtain instruction as to what action has been taken by the respondent no. 4 in Page No. 4/4

respect of the applications submitted by the petitioner for demarcation of the subject-plot since receipt of the applications.

5. Today, Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate has placed on record a communication dated 20.11.2021 made by the respondent no. 4 to him. As per the said communication, the respondent no. 4 has deputed the land revenue staff for field verification of the subject-plot and as per the land records, the land is an Ezmali land and the names of 29 nos. of pattadars have been recorded in the land records available in the office. It has been informed by the said communication that for proper verification and the necessary action in respect of the subject-plot a period of further 2 [two] weeks would be required for carrying out the verification and necessary action.

6. In view of the above communication placed by Mr. Goswami, this Court finds it appropriate that instead of keeping the writ petition pending, the same can be disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 4 to complete the exercise of demarcation of the subject-plot as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 2 [two] months by carrying out the necessary field verification and correction of the concerned land records, if necessary and by observing the due procedure and by putting the other stakeholders to notice and in the event it is found that the demarcation exercise is not possible to be carried out then a speaking order be passed within that period assigning the reasons. It is accordingly directed. The petitioner shall render necessary assistance and co-operation in the exercise to be carried out by the respondent no. 4 for demarcation of the boundaries of the subject-plot.

7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant