Sashi Devi Jalan vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 2228 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Sashi Devi Jalan vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 23 January, 2025

                                                                        Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010028472022




                                                                 undefined

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

                               Case No. : WP(C)/1342/2022

            SASHI DEVI JALAN
            W/O- SRI ISWAR PRASAD JALAN, R/O- A.T. ROAD, HIJUGURI, TINSUKIA
            TOWN, P.O., P..S AND DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
            REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND
            DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.

            2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

             TINSUKIA
             ASSAM.

            3:THE SUPDT. OF POLICE

             POLICE HEAD QUARTER
             TINSUKIA
             ASSAM.

            4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER

             TINSUKIA REVENUE CIRCLE
             TINSUKIA
             ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. S P CHOUDHURY, MS B DEVI,MR K BISWAKARMA

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. D GOSWAMI, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL,
ASSAM,SC, REVENUE
                                                                          Page No.# 2/6




                                 BEFORE
                     HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE

                                    JUDGMENT

Date : 23-01-2025

Heard Mr. K. Biswakarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mrs. S. Baruah, learned State counsel for the respondents No.2, 3 and 4.

2. By filing this petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities not to give effect to the impugned eviction drive initiated against her and also refrain from handing over possession of the land under the occupation of the petitioner to any other individual or organization and also to issue patta in the name of the petitioner.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is in a possession of a plot of land measuring 1 bigha 4 kathas 4 lechas under Dag No.92 and 94 situated under Village Hijuguri under Tinsukia mouza by way of a registered deed of agreement for possession which was executed on 26.02.1976 by one Birendranath Bhuyan. After acquiring possessory right, she had started living in the said land by constructing residential house. However, since the land was annual patta land, the land could not be mutated in her name and accordingly, she had applied for settlement of the land in her name. The petitioner contends that despite such application for settlement of the land, no action was taken for consideration of the settlement of the said land in her favour, instead, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia initiated non-renewal proceeding being N.R. Case No.47/1993 for conversion of the annual patta land into government land. Thereafter, vide order dated 10.10.1995, the annual patta Page No.# 3/6

land was cancelled and made the land as government land.

4. Mr. K. Biswakarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that since the petitioner is in the occupation and possession of the said land since 1976, she has legitimate expectation that the respondent authorities would consider the application of the petitioner for settlement of the land in her favour. However, the respondent authorities have initiated steps for eviction of the petitioner without following due process of law, which is illegal. He submits that in view of continuous possession of the said land on the strength of registered deed of agreement, the petitioner has certain rights over the land even after it is converted into government land. The respondent authorities ought to have considered the case of the petitioner for settlement as per land policy. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the respondent authorities may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for settlement in her favour in terms of the land policy of the State.

5. Mr. A. Bhattacharjee and Mrs. S. Baruah, learned State counsels have submitted that after drawing non-renewal proceeding, the competent authority on the basis of such proceeding being N.R Case No.47/1993 date 10.10.1995, cancelled the annual patta and made the land as government land. Even thereafter, it is found that the petitioner is still in illegal occupation of the said government land. The State respondents categorically have submitted that no eviction drive was conducted against the petitioner till date. But the said land has been identified for implementation of a scheme of Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation, Ministry of Jal Shakti, Govt. of India "Jal Jivan Mission", therefore the land being the government land, would be required for the public purpose and as such, no consideration can be made for settlement of the said land in favour of the petitioner.

Page No.# 4/6

6. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

7. Undisputedly, the petitioner is in possession of the land measuring 1 bigha 4 kathas 4 lechas falls under Dag No.92 and 94 situated under village Hijuguri under Tinsukia Mouza by way of registered deed of agreement executed on 26.02.1976. It is also the admitted position that the land was an annual patta land and the said annual patta was cancelled after the non-renewal proceeding being N.R. Case No.47/93 vide order dated 10.10.1995 and made the land as government land. It is equally admitted fact that the petitioner is still in occupation and possession of the land since 1976.

8. The Assam Land and Revenue Regulation 1886 prescribes the right of the settlement holders and distinguishes such right from that of the land holder. As per Section 11, the settlement holder is declared to have no rights in the land held by him beyond such as are expressed in the settlement lease as it provides that a settlement-holder who is not a land-holder, shall have no rights in the land held by him beyond such as are expressed in his settlement lease.

9. The settlement rules framed under the above regulation provides the definition of annual lease. Under Rule 1(2)(c) an "Annual Lease" means a lease granted for one year only and confers no right in the soil beyond a right of user for the year for which it is given. It confers no right of inheritance beyond the year of issue. It confers no right of transfer or of sub-letting and shall be liable to cancellation for any transfer or subletting even during the year of issue. It is also provided that the State Government may waive their right to cancel an annual lease and may allow its renewal automatically till such time as the State Government may direct in those cases in which the land is mortgaged to Government or to a State-sponsored Co-operative Society.

Page No.# 5/6

10. A bare reading of the above proceeding goes to show that the settlement rules do not prohibit transfer of annual patta land, but the transferred rights are limited in their duration only for the period covered by annual patta. Therefore when any transfer of right is affected by an annual patta holder for consideration, the transferors acquire good title to the annual patta land, subject only to the paramount title of the government.

11. In the case of Jainur Ali -vs- Chafina Bibi reported in AIR 1951 20, it has been held that if the government chooses it may, at the expiry of the period of annual patta, refuse to grant an annual patta to the transferee. However, it is a matter between the government and the transferee and not a matter between transferor and transferee.

12. Having considered the above provisions and the decision of Jainur Ali (supra), it is seen that if the government chooses it may, at the expiry of the period of annual patta refuse to grant an annual patta to the transferee. However, it is a matter between the government and the transferee and not the matter between transferor and transferee.

13. In the present case, the petitioner is claiming possessory right on the basis of the registered deed of agreement for possession executed on 26.02.1976 which was an annual patta. The government after the non-renewal proceeding, as noted hereinabove, has cancelled the annual patta given initially to the transferor and made the land a government land. Thus, I am of the view that the petitioner may not have an absolute or indefeasible right to have grant of settlement of the land in her favour. It is also taken note of the fact that no eviction drive has been carried against the petitioner as on date. Nevertheless, fact remains that the petitioner is still in possession of the said land and the government has identified the land for implementation of a public project called Page No.# 6/6

"Jal Jeevan Mission" which is a centrally sponsored scheme for the interest of public.

14. Although, the petitioner has submitted that eviction drive is sought to be carried out by the respondent authorities, there is nothing on record to show that any proceeding has been initiated for eviction or any eviction drive so carried out as on date against the petitioner.

15. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, I am of the view that the petitioner would not have any indefeasible right of settlement of the said land in her favour. Thus, no relief can be granted for settlement of the said land in favour of the petitioner. There is no ground or reason to direct the respondent authorities for settlement of the said land in favour of the petitioner particularly when the land has already been identified for implementation of public project.

16. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, considering that the petitioner is in possession of the occupation of the land since 1976 till date, the respondent authorities may consider the case of the petitioner for settlement strictly in accordance with the Act and Rules. It is needless to observe that, in the event of any eviction proceeding is initiated, the respondent authorities shall follow the due procedure of law.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant