Page No. 1/6 vs The State Of Assam
2025 Latest Caselaw 4320 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No. 1/6 vs The State Of Assam on 21 March, 2025

Author: Manish Choudhury

Bench: Manish Choudhury

                                                                          Page No. 1/6

GAHC010050772025




                                                                   2025:GAU-AS:3164

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

                                 Case No. : WP(C)/1508/2025

            SRI KAILASH SARMA
            S/O SRI SIBANATH SARMA R/O ULUBARI RAMAKRISHNA MISSION ROAD,
            P.S. PALTAN BAZAR IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP(M), ASSAM.

            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM
            REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
            REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.

            2:THE DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER
             KAMRUP METRO
             HENGRABARI
             GUWAHATI-36
            ASSAM

            3:THE ADDL. DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
             KAMRUP METRO
             HENGRABARI
             GUWAHATI-36
            ASSAM

            4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
             GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE
             KAMRUP METRO
             ULUBARI
             GUWAHATI-7
            ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. S SAIKIA, MR U DAS,MR. J DAS

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPT, GA,
ASSAM
                                                                                   Page No. 2/6


                                       BEFORE
                      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

                                          ORDER

Date : 21.03.2025

Heard Mr. S. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue & Disaster Management Department for the respondent no. 1; and Mr. S.R. Barua, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4.

2. Having regard to the issue involved in this writ petition and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final consideration at the motion stage itself.

3. The petitioner has approached this Court assailing inter-alia a Notice dated 05.03.2025 issued in the name of one Sri Dipak Barman by the respondent no. 4, subsequent to a previous Notice dated 30.01.2025. The petitioner is also seeking directions to the respondent authorities to dispose of a representation submitted by him on 05.03.2025 in response to the Notice dated 30.01.2025 and not to evict the petitioner from a plot of land measuring 1 Bigha 5 Kathas, situate at Village - Ulubari, Mouza - Ulubari, District - Kamrup [M], covered by Government Dag no. 12[Old]/97[New] ['the subject-land', for short] and to allot the subject- land in his favour.

4. On query made to Mr. Saikia regarding the reason for approaching this Court by the petitioner assailing the Notices dated 30.01.2015 and dated 05.03.2025, which are not issued to him but to one Sri Dipak Barman, Mr. Saikia has referred to an unregistered gift deed dated 06.04.1990 executed by one Gautam Chandra Barman, son of Nabin Chandra Barman, annexed as Annexure-A to the writ petition, in favour of the petitioner as the donee. Mr. Saikia has submitted that by virtue of the said gift deed dated 06.04.1990, Gautam Chandra Barman gifted and handed over the possession of the subject-plot, within Government Dag no. 12 [Old]/97 [New] to the petitioner. Mr. Saikia has further submitted that Gautam

Chandra Barman, son of Nabin Chandra Barman and the notice, Dipak Barman are brothers. As the notices, dated 30.01.2025 and 05.03.2025, are issued to the earlier possessor of the plot of land and the petitioner is presently in occupation of the subject-plot, the petitioner has approached this Court by the instant writ petition apprehending his eviction from the subject- plot in view of the two notices.

5. The petitioner has stated that the petitioner is in occupation of the subject-land for a period of more than three decades.

6. It is relevant to note that a number of persons occupying various parcels of land within Government Dag no. 12[Old]/97[New] at Village - Ulubari, Mouza - Ulubari had earlier approached this Court through a batch of writ petitions including W.P.[C] no. 3715/2020. After hearing the parties, the said batch of writ petitions including W.P.[C] no. 3715/2020, was disposed of by a common Judgment and Order dated 07.11.2024 with a set of directions.

7. In the common Judgment and Order dated 07.11.2024, the following observations and directions have been made :-

50. Accordingly, this Court therefore, disposes of the instant batch of these writ petitions with the following observations and directions :

[i] The impugned notices under Rule 18 so issued to the petitioners to vacate shall be construed as notices issued by the Circle Officer, Guwahati Revenue Circle, to show cause why the petitioners should not be evicted by taking recourse to Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules.

[ii] The petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions are given the liberty to submit individual replies and substantiating the same with documents and such evidence as deemed proper thereby showing cause that the petitioners have a bona fide claim of right involved in respect to the land under their occupation and as such the recourse to Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules is not permissible.

[iii] The liberty given above is to be exercised within 30 [thirty] days, from the date of the

instant order. In the said replies, the petitioners herein shall indicate in which writ petition, the petitioner[s] were parties.

[iv] The Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup [M] is directed to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners either personally or through their authorized representative[s]. The Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup [M] shall thereupon pass appropriate speaking orders. The Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup [M] is further directed to allot a particular area in his office wherein, such replies could be submitted. A notice be hanged in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup [M] indicating the area.

[v] This Court further directs that upon the speaking orders being passed, the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup [Metro] shall notify in its notice board about the fact that the speaking order had been passed. For a period of 30 [thirty] days from such notification, no coercive measures be taken so that if the petitioners are aggrieved, they may avail remedies as permissible under law.

8. Though the present petitioner was not one of the petitioners in the afore-mentioned batch of writ petitions disposed of by the common Judgment and Order dated 07.11.2024, the respondent no. 4 has issued the Notice dated 30.01.2025 also to Dipak Barman in reference to the directives given in the common Judgment and Order dated 07.11.2024. In the Notice, the respondent no. 4 has mentioned that pursuant to the directions [supra], it was notified by the office of the District Commissioner on 21.11.2024 to the interested persons, occupying different areas of land within Government Dag no. 12 [Old]/97 [New], to submit their replies showing cause with regard to their bona fide claims of right in respect of the respective plots of land under their occupation within Government Dag no. 12 [Old]/97 [New]. In the Notice, it has been further mentioned that the noticee seems to have not submitted any reply to the Notice dated 21.11.2024.

9. Mr. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the reply annexed as Annexure-F to the writ petition, has submitted that in response to the Notice dated 30.01.2025, the petitioner has already submitted his reply on 05.03.2025 and the receipt of the said reply has been duly acknowledged by the office of the respondent no. 4 under its

seal and signature on 05.03.2025. He has further submitted that the reply submitted by the petitioner in response to the Notice dated 30.01.2025 has not yet been disposed of and it is in such situation, the petitioner has to approach this Court by the instant writ petition apprehending his eviction, at any time, from the subject-plot.

10. Mr. Borpujari and Mr. Barua both have conjointly submitted that considering the fact that the petitioner has already submitted a reply in response to the Notice dated 21.11.2024, this writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities, more particularly, respondent no. 2 to take the reply, stated to have been submitted by the petitioner on 05.03.2025, on board and thereafter, to proceed to dispose of the same in terms of the observations and directions made in the common Judgment and Order dated 07.11.2024.

11. Since the petitioner has stated that he has already submitted his reply in response to the Notice dated 21.11.2024 the receipt of which has been duly acknowledged, this Court is of the considered view that interest of justice will be sub-served if a direction is made to the respondent no. 2 to take the said reply, already submitted by the petitioner on 05.03.2025, on board by construing the Notice dated 30.01.2025 to be a notice to show cause why the petitioner should not be evicted by taking recourse to Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules in terms of direction [i] given in the common Judgment and Order dated 07.11.2024. This court is also of the considered view that the petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity of seven days from today to submit additional supporting documents/evidence in support of his bona fide claim in respect of the plot of land in question, if he so desires. Thereafter, the respondent no. 2 shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his authorized representative as per the observations and directions made in the common Judgment and Order dated 07.11.2024. After allowing such opportunities for submission of additional supporting documents and hearing, the respondent no. 2 shall thereafter, proceed to consider the reply and the additional supporting documents, if any, submitted by the petitioner and dispose of the same by passing a speaking order as expeditiously as possible, within an outer limit of one month from the date of conclusion of hearing. While considering the case of the petitioner, the respondent no. 2 shall also examine the claim of the petitioner regarding his

possession of the plot of land on the strength of the gift deed, he had relied upon coming into possession of the subject-plot. The speaking order to be passed shall be notified in the notice board and shall also be supplied to the petitioner forthwith thereafter. It is further observed that if the speaking order is found to be adversarial to the petitioner, there shall not be any coercive measure against the petitioner for a period of thirty days from the date of passing of the speaking order so as to facilitate the petitioner to avail remedies as permissible under the law. It is accordingly directed.

12. The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant