Gauhati High Court
Mcleod Russel India Limited vs The Assam Board Of Revenue on 28 March, 2025
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010065412025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1730/2025
MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
COMPANIES ACT,1956,HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 4,MANGOE
LANE,SURENDRA MOHAN GHOSH SARANI,KOLKATA-700001,WEST
BENGAL AND REP. HEREIN THROUGH ITS SENIOR MANAGER,SHRI RAJ
KAMAL PHUKAN
VERSUS
THE ASSAM BOARD OF REVENUE
OFFICE OF THE ASSAM BOARD OF REVENUE,PAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI,
ASSAM-PIN-781001
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
TINSUKIA
ASSAM
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
TINSUKIA
ASSAM PIN-786125
3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
MARGHERITA REVENUE CIRCLE
MARGHERITA REVENUE CIRCLE OFFICER
MARGHERITA
ASSAM
PIN-786181
4:REVEREND GAYANOWADA BHIKKHU
ON THE BEHALF OF MARGHERITA BUDDHA VIHAR
MARGHERITA
Page No.# 2/3
IN THE DISTRICT OF TINSUKIA
ASSAM
PIN-78618
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A DEKA, MR A BHATRA,N CHAUDHURY,MR. M DAS,MR.
B D DEKA
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
ORDER
28.03.2025
Heard Mr. B.D. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. S. Konwar, learned
Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 1 & 2.
2. This writ petition is directed against a Judgment & Order dated 29.10.2024 passed by
the Assam Board of Revenue, Guwahati in Case no. 47 RA[TIN]/2019, an appeal preferred by
the petitioner as the appellant under Section 147 read with Section 151 of the Assam Land
and Revenue Regulation, 1886. The appeal was preferred to assail an Order dated
19.08.2019 passed by the respondent no. 1 herein whereby the respondent no. 1 struck off
the name of the petitioner as the recorded pattadar from the register of records and reverted
the land in question to the Government of Assam on the ground that the petitioner as the
recorded pattadar had lost possession and interest in the said plot of land.
3. The plot of land involved herein is a parcel of land measuring 4 Bighas.
4. Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Assam Board of
Revenue misconstrued the provisions contained in Rule 116 of the Rules framed under the
Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 while considering the issue as to whether the
petitioner/appellant had lost possession or interest in the land in question. He has referred to
the decision of this Court in Bhabani Shankar Bagaria vs. State of Assam and others, reported
Page No.# 3/3
in 2008 [4] GLR 134, to submit that to struck off the name of a recorded pattadar, under
Rule 116, it must be shown that the recorded pattadar apart from losing possession, must be
shown to have ceased too have interest in the land. Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the
petitioner has further submitted that even if it is assumed that the petitioner has lost
possession of the plot in question, it cannot be assumed that the petitioner/appellant has lost
interest in the land in question.
5. The matter would require further consideration.
6. Issue notice, returnable after 4 [four] weeks.
7. As Ms. Konwar, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam has appeared and
accepted notices on behalf of both the respondents, issuance of formal notices to the
respondents stands dispensed with. The learned counsel for the petitioner shall furnish copies
of the writ petition along with annexures to Ms. Konwar within 2 [two] working days from
today.
8. Having regard to the projections made on behalf of the petitioner/appellant and the
ratio laid down in Bhabani Shankar Bagaria [supra], it is provided that the operation of the
impugned Judgment & Order dated 29.10.2024 passed by the Assam Board of Revenue,
Guwahati in Case no. 47 RA[TIN]/2019 shall remain suspended, till the returnable date.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
