Dhani Ram Chutia vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 2954 Gua

                                                                    Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010024512020




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

                                  Case No. : WP(C)/723/2020

            DHANI RAM CHUTIA
            S/O- LATE LAKHMI CHUTIA, R/O- NA ALI, KAMALABORIA BLOCK, P.O
            AND P.S- JORHAT, PIN- 785001



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
            REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPTT OF REVENUE, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 06

            2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
             JORHAT
             PIN- 785001

            3:RAJU KALITA
             S/O- LATE AKON KALITA
             R/O- NA ALI
             KAMALABORIA BLOCK
             P.O AND P.S- JORHAT
             DIST- JORHAT
            ASSAM
             PIN- 785001

            4:GAUTAM KALITA
             S/O- LATE AKON KALITA
             R/O- NA ALI
             KAMALABORIA BLOCK
             P.O AND P.S- JORHAT
             DIST- JORHAT
            ASSAM
             PIN- 78500

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. S BISWAS
                                                                           Page No.# 2/3


Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE




                                 BEFORE
                HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

                                       ORDER

12.08.2022 Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 05.02.2020, the contesting respondent nos. 3 and 4 have appeared through Shri J Roy, learned Senior Counsel.

In this petition, the petitioner has put to challenge a judgment dated 22.08.2019 passed by the Assam Board of Revenue (Board) in Case No. 55 RA (J)/2016 by which the earlier order dated 02.03.2016 of the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat was interfered with and it has been held that the petitioner is not entitled to ownership under Section 23 of the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971.

Shri S Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is ex facie illegal inasmuch, as the learned Board had overlooked the fact that the petitioner was in possession of a pucca khatian and therefore, there was no error committed by the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner in declaring ownership in his favour.

On the other hand, Shri Roy, learned Senior Counsel for the contesting respondents submits that the khatian of the petitioner is a kutcha khatian which is under Rule 31 and therefore, the order dated 02.03.2016 of the Addl. Deputy Commissioner is palpably illegal and has been rightly interfered with by the learned Board.

The matter would require some deliberation. It is further seen that the records, which were called for, have been received.

Page No.# 3/3

Admit for hearing.

Since the records have already been received, list this case for hearing on 06.09.2022.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant