[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/13 vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 13 March, 2026
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/13
GAHC010016302014
2026:GAU-AS:3717
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5238/2014
SATYA NARAYAN SINGH
S/O LT. RAM CHANDRA SINGH R/O BMAUNIMAIDAN, BEHING M/S BIMAL
AUTO AGNECY GUWAHATI-21, PROPRIETOR OF M/S NARAYAN BRICK
FILES IN SHORET NBF
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY REVENUE DEPTT. GOVT.
OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.
2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP M
PANBAZAR
GUWAHATI-1.
3:THE ADDL. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP M
PANBAZAR
GUWAHATI-1.
4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
CHANDRAPUR REVENUE CIRCLE
PANIKHAITI
CHANDRAPUR
PRAGJYOTISHPUR
KAMRUP M
ASSAM
Page No.# 2/13
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.P. Roy, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N. Das, Govt. Advocate
Ms. P.R. Mahanta, Standing Counsel
Date on which judgment was reserved : NA
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 13.03.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of the
Operative part of the judgment? : NA
Whether the full judgment has been
pronounced? : Yes
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. S.P. Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner. Ms. P.R. Mahanta, the learned Standing Counsel appears on
behalf of the respondent No. 1 and Mr. N. Das, the learned
Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to
4.
2. The petitioner herein has assailed the order dated 30.05.2014
passed by the respondent No. 2 and has further sought for directions
Page No.# 3/13
that the respondents should not prohibit the petitioner from operating
the brick kiln pursuant to the consent to operate dated 12.02.2014
issued by the Pollution Control Board, Assam.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is in possession and
occupation of a plot of land admeasuring 35 Bighas 1 Katha 1 Lecha
as described in Schedule A to the writ petition wherein the petitioner
has been running a Brick Industry in the name and style of M/s
Narayan Brick Field for the last 30 years. In addition to that, the
petitioner also has a patta land admeasuring 11 Bighas 18 Lechas
described in Schedule B to the writ petition, wherein the petitioner
has fixed a chimney and brick kiln. The land described in Schedule A
to the writ petition is admittedly a Government land.
4. On 15.04.2009, the petitioner submitted an application before the
Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) seeking settlement of the land
described in Schedule A. It is the case of the petitioner that instead of
taking steps regarding the application filed by the petitioner for
settlement, the Respondent Authorities on 28.02.2014, served a
notice under Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules framed under the
Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 read with Sections 165(1),
165(2), and 165(3) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886
(for short, "the Regulation") in Encroachment Case No. 3/2014. The
notice was issued on the basis of a report submitted by the Circle
Page No.# 4/13
Officer, Chandrapur Revenue Circle stating that the petitioner was in
occupation of a plot of land measuring 30 Bighas 4 Lechas covered by
Dag Nos. 27, 28, 29, 36, and 37 without any authority, and therefore
directed the petitioner to vacate the said land, failing which steps
would be taken for eviction.
5. The petitioner, therefore, submitted an objection on 03.03.2014
before the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M), against the said notice.
The petitioner also informed the authority that the petitioner's
application for settlement was pending and accordingly submitted a
representation and objection in respect to the Schedule A land, from
where the petitioner's brick manufacturing process were being carried
out. It further appears that the petitioner thereupon approached this
Court by filing a writ petition which was registered and numbered as
WP(C) No. 1196/2014 challenging the notice dated 28.02.2014 issued
by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M).
6. This Court, vide an order dated 05.03.2014 disposed of the said
writ petition by directing the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) to
take on record the representation submitted by the petitioner on
03.03.2014 and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible,
preferably within 2 (two) months and till then to maintain status quo.
7. It is alleged in the writ petition that the petitioner thereupon
submitted two representations dated 05.03.2014 and 20.05.2014. It is
Page No.# 5/13
also alleged that, on 21.05.2014, one Smt. Sushmita Bora, an officer
attached to the Circle Officer of Chandrapur Revenue Circle came to
the petitioner's land and threatened to demolish the labour sheds and
other structures. However, in view of the order dated 05.03.2014
passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 1196/2014, the said Smt. Sushmita
Bora left without carrying out any eviction, but threatened the
petitioner that the petitioner would be evicted if no fresh stay order
was produced. Under such circumstances, the petitioner filed another
writ petition before this Court which was registered and numbered as
WP(C) No. 2869/2014 and this Court vide an order dated 06.06.2014
directed that the petitioner shall not be evicted for the next 2 (two)
weeks unless the petitioner's representation is disposed of by the
Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) in terms with the order passed in
WP(C) No. 1196/2014.
8. It is further the case of the petitioner that another representation
was submitted on 19.06.2014 before the Deputy Commissioner,
Kamrup (M) by enclosing a copy of the order dated 06.06.2014 and
prayed to withdraw the notice dated 28.02.2014. In the meantime,
the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) passed an order dated
30.05.2014 by which the petitioner's objection dated 05.03.2014 as
well as the application seeking settlement were rejected. The
petitioner received the said order on 24.09.2014 and therefore
approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
Page No.# 6/13
9. The records reveal that vide an order dated 17.10.2014 the
learned Coordinate Bench of this Court while issuing notice, granted
protection to the petitioner only in respect of the patta land described
in Schedule B to the writ petition, but refused to grant any interim
protection in respect of the Schedule A land.
10. The record further reveals that an affidavit-in-opposition was
filed by the respondent No. 3 stating inter alia the reasons for passing
the order dated 30.05.2014. At paragraph No. 13 of the said affidavit,
it was mentioned that the land for which the petitioner sought
settlement is located adjacent to the city and it is fast growing as a
residential area, being on the fringe of Guwahati city. It was
mentioned that in order to minimize the tremendous pressure on the
available resources and infrastructure of the city, the development of
the area under Chandrapur Revenue Circle into a planned modern
township is under consideration of the State Government. Apart from
that, the brick kiln is situated near No. 2 Kharghuli Village which is
only about 50 meters away from human habitation. Under such
circumstances, the existence of a brick kiln would lead to pollution,
resulting in unhygienic conditions and environmental pollution causing
health hazards to the growing population. It was also mentioned that
the brick kiln of the petitioner is situated near the Brahmaputra River
and extensive earth cutting in and around the brick kiln had resulted
in flash floods every year in the area for which safety and security of
Page No.# 7/13
the area as well as Guwahati city was seriously alarming.
11. It is further seen that pursuant to the affidavit-in-opposition filed
by respondent No. 3, the petitioner filed an affidavit-in-reply wherein
it was mentioned that the petitioner's settlement application was still
pending with the Government for allotment and till the settlement
petition is allowed or rejected, the Additional Deputy Commissioner
had no power to evict the petitioner as the petitioner had been paying
royalty, and as such the occupation was not unauthorized. It was also
mentioned that it is permissible on the part of a brick manufacturing
industry to remain in possession upon payment of Government royalty
as per the notification. In addition to that, it was also mentioned that
invocation of Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules was not permissible
taking into account that the land in question was not previously
reserved for roadside, grazing of village cattle, or for other public
purposes, or the petitioner has entered into possession of the land
which have been excluded by general or special order.
12. In the backdrop of the above, this Court heard the learned
counsels appearing for the parties.
13. Mr. S.P. Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner drawing the attention of this Court to Rule 13A of the
Settlement Rules submitted that the power to grant or reject
settlement is with the State Government and not with the Deputy
Page No.# 8/13
Commissioner. The learned counsel further submitted that the
instruction dated 28.11.2001 issued by the Revenue Department of
the Government of Assam would show that the Deputy Commissioner
is only required to submit the proposal for settlement of the land to
the Government in cases relating to settlement of land for brick kilns,
and therefore the Deputy Commissioner does not have the power to
decide the application for settlement.
14. Ms. P.R. Mahanta, the learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue
Department submitted that though Rule 13A of the Settlement Rules
stipulates that the final power of settlement of Government land is
vested in the State Government, the Deputy Commissioner/District
Commissioner is required to examine the proposal for
allotment/settlement and either recommend or not recommend or
reject the proposal as per the powers specifically delegated under the
relevant laws and Government circulars. The learned Standing
Counsel further submitted that the Deputy Commissioner in the
instant case had already rejected the petitioner's representation for
allotment/settlement of Government land for setting up a brick kiln for
the reasons mentioned in the impugned order dated 30.05.2014 and
as such, the Government would not be considering settlement of the
land in favour of the petitioner.
15. Mr. N. Das, the learned Government Advocate appearing on
Page No.# 9/13
behalf of the District Commissioner submitted that Rule 13A of the
Settlement Rules is in relation to conversion of annual lease to
periodic lease and under such circumstances, the State Government
prior approval is required. The learned Government Advocate,
however, submitted that Rule 5 of the Settlement Rules stipulates that
applications for lease of wasteland shall be made in writing and
presented to the Deputy Commissioner or any other officer
empowered by the Deputy Commissioner under Rule 3 of the
Settlement Rules. This application for settlement has to be disposed
of by the Deputy Commissioner in terms with Rule 8 of the Settlement
Rules and as such the learned Government Advocate submitted that it
being the mandate of the Settlement Rules, the submission so made
by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the
Deputy Commissioner did not have the power to reject the application
for settlement is completely unfounded. The learned Government
Advocate further submitted that under the Assam Land Policy, 2019,
the permission for manufacturing bricks, tiles etc. is a temporary
permission, subject to realization of premium and fulfillment of certain
conditions as may be defined by the State Government. The learned
Government Advocate, therefore, submitted that the reasons assigned
in the impugned order do not call for any interference.
16. In addition to that, the learned Government Advocate submitted
that the petitioner's contention that Rule 18(2) of the Settlement
Page No.# 10/13
Rules cannot be applied in respect to Government khas land is
misconceived, taking into account the amendment made by the
Assam Land and Revenue Regulation (Amendment) Rules, 1997, by
which Government khas land, wasteland, or estate over which no
person has acquired proprietary rights has been included within the
purview of Rule 18(2).
17. This Court has given an anxious consideration to the respective
submissions.
18. The materials on record clearly go to show that it is an admitted
fact that the petitioner is carrying out its business of manufacturing
brick on both Schedule A and Schedule B lands. The Schedule A land
is admittedly Government khas land. The petitioner had submitted an
application seeking settlement and during the pendency of the said
application, the Respondent Authorities initiated eviction proceedings
under Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules by issuing notice dated
28.02.2014. The petitioner thereupon approached this Court by filing
a writ petition being WP(C) No. 1196/2014, and this Court vide an
order dated 05.03.2014 directed the Deputy Commissioner to dispose
of the petitioner's representation as expeditiously as possible
preferably within 2 (two) months. It was also directed that till then,
the status quo as on 05.03.2014 shall continue.
19. It is further relevant to take note of that the petitioner thereupon
Page No.# 11/13
continued to submit representations and again approached this Court
by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No. 2869/2014. The learned
Coordinate Bench of this Court directed that no steps for eviction shall
be carried out till the disposal of the representation by the Deputy
Commissioner, Kamrup(M) in terms with the order dated 05.03.2014
passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 1196/2014. It further appears that
the petitioner thereupon submitted various representations but in the
meantime, even prior to the order passed by this Court on
06.06.2014, the petitioner's representation dated 03.03.2014 was
disposed of on 30.05.2014 by passing the impugned order.
20. The question which arises before this Court is, as to whether the
said impugned order requires interference.
21. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submitted that in terms with Rule 13A of the Settlement Rules, it is
the State Government who has to decide the said application as
regards the settlement. In the opinion of this Court, the reliance made
to Rule 13A of the Settlement Rules is completely misplaced inasmuch
as Rule 13A of the Settlement Rules is in relation to conversion of
annual patta to periodic patta and Rule 8 of the Settlement Rules
empowers the Deputy Commissioner to accept or reject an application
seeking settlement.
22. This Court further takes note of that the petitioner herein is in
Page No.# 12/13
occupation of Government land. The petitioner though claims that the
petitioner has paid royalty and has the consent to operate from the
Pollution Control Board, Assam but the petitioner does not have
permission from the Government to establish a brick kiln on
Government land.
23. It is relevant to take note of that the Government Land Policy of
1989 and the Assam Land Policy, 2019 categorically mandates that for
the purpose of setting up brick industry upon certain Government
lands, temporary permission from the Government is required to be
taken. In the instant case, there is nothing to that effect.
24. This Court also takes note of the reasons so assigned in the
impugned order, as to why the petitioner cannot be granted the
settlement for establishing its brick kiln industry. The reason assigned
in the opinion of this Court are reasonable, pragmatic as well as
rational and therefore do not call for interference under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
25. Apart from above, the Assam Land Policy, 1989 as well as the
Assam Land Policy, 2019 do not permit settlement of Government land
for brick kiln industries. The policies only provide temporary
permission.
26. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition,
Page No.# 13/13
for which, the same stands dismissed.
27. Before parting with the record, this Court observes that the
present adjudication is in respect to the Schedule A land, which is
Government land, and not in respect to the Schedule B land, which
the petitioner claims to be his patta land.
Bijoy Digitally signed
by Bijoy Saha JUDGE
Saha Date: 2026.03.14
15:25:59 +05'30'
Comparing Assistant
