Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 657 (GAU)

Ganesh Chauhan v. State of Assam

2017-05-25

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2017
JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. R.S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Y. Dodoi, learned Addl. General Govt. Advocate appearing for the state respondents and Mr. R. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.8. Although, the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 had been served, the state respondents have chosen not to appear before this Court. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the father of the petitioner No.1. Munnar Chauhan was a landless person and in the year 1955, the respondent Nos. 2 and 4 had permitted him to occupy a plot of land measuring 10 bighas covered by Dag No.20/22 Touzi No.43 under Rangmati Mouza in the Mangaldoi district. Accordingly, the said Munnar Chauhan had occupied the land by clearing the jungle and since then he was in continuous possession over the said land by constructing dwelling houses. It is stated that during the lifetime of the said Munnar Chauhan, an application in the form ‘B’ was submitted before the concerned authority for settlement of the land under his possession and the said application was duly accepted. In the year 1982 one Jogesh Das along with seven others taking advantage of the poverty and helplessness of M. Chouhan had forcefully occupied the land in question by dispossessing Munnar Chauhan. Munnar Chauhan, accordingly, preferred an application under Section 145 Cr. P.C. before the Executive Magistrate, Mangaldoi by filing Misc Case No.189/1982. 3. Learned Executive Magistrate by order dated 14.02.1985 had confirmed the possession of Munnar Chauhan by arriving at a conclusion that the said land was in his possession for the last 25 years and that he was cultivating over the land. Accordingly, possession was declared in favour of Munnar Chauhan. The petitioner in this petition is now aggrieved by certain settlement orders made in favour of the respondent No.8 saying that the said settlement had been made illegally which is in violation to the legal right of the petitioner. Accordingly, possession was declared in favour of Munnar Chauhan. The petitioner in this petition is now aggrieved by certain settlement orders made in favour of the respondent No.8 saying that the said settlement had been made illegally which is in violation to the legal right of the petitioner. The State respondents, on the other hand, has filed an affidavit-in-opposition, stating that the petitioner by showing muscle power had forcefully occupied the village grazing reserve land and that one of the petitioner, who is deceased in the meantime, had stated on oath by writing before the Circle Officer, Mangaldoi Revenue Circle on 13.04.2011 that he had illegally occupied 25 bighas of Government land at Gerimari Chapori Revenue Village and on 06.04.2011, he sold 2 kathas of land out of 25 bighas to some other villager named Shri Dulal Das at consideration money of Rs. 1,10,000/-. It is also stated that the petitioner had illegally sold earth to the owners of tractors and trucks from the illegally occupied Govt. land. The State respondents also denied that the respondent Nos.2 and 4 had allowed Munnar Chouhan to live in the land measuring 10 bighas covered by Touzi No.43 of Dag No. 20/22 and that there is no such record in the office of the respondent Nos. 2 and 4. 4. In paragraph-6 of the said affidavit, it has been stated that there is no record in the office of the revenue office regarding filing of the application in the form ‘B’ by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner. There is also no record in the office that Munnar Chouhan had been occupied the land continuously since the year 1955. The only record available is that the petitioners have been paying land revenue by way of penalty since the year 1993. It is also stated that the settlement operation was carried out in the year 1972 and the re-settlement operation was carried out in the year 1987 and therefore, had the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner occupied the land since the year 1955, they might have got settlement of the land in such settlement operation. 5. It is also stated that the settlement operation was carried out in the year 1972 and the re-settlement operation was carried out in the year 1987 and therefore, had the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner occupied the land since the year 1955, they might have got settlement of the land in such settlement operation. 5. In paragraph-7 of the affidavit-in-opposition it is the stand of the State respondents that the land in question is located within 3 k.m radius of the Mangaldoi Municipal Area and as per the land policy of the allotment of Government land, only 1 katha 5 lechas can be allotted to each landless person within 3 k.m. from the municipal area. It is the stand of the respondent authorities that the petitioners are illegally occupying more than 25 Big has of VGR land. 6. As regards the allotment of land to the respondent No.8, the said respondent states that the respondent No.8 is a poor person belonging to the schedule caste community and he is also landless under the land policy of the Government of Assam. 7. From the aforesaid, it is discernible that the petitioners claim a legal right over the land in question, by claiming that they are in possession of the same since the year 1955 and their possession was declared by the learned Executive Magistrate in a proceeding under Section 145. Further that the petitioners have been paying revenue since the year 1974. Accordingly, on the basis of the aforesaid stand, the petitioners claim that they have a legal right to be settled with the land in question under the land policy of the Government in force. 8. The claim of the petitioners that they are entitled to settlement of the land, pursuant to the land policy of the Government of Assam had been controverted by the State Government in their affidavit by stating that under the land policy, the petitioners if found to be landless people, can be allotted only to the extent of 1 katha 5 lechas of land. Further, although the petitioners have claimed to have submitted an application in ‘ B’ form for settlement, the said application is not available on record with the respondent authorities. 9. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the case of the petitioners be considered under the land policy of the Govt. of Assam. Further, although the petitioners have claimed to have submitted an application in ‘ B’ form for settlement, the said application is not available on record with the respondent authorities. 9. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the case of the petitioners be considered under the land policy of the Govt. of Assam. It is made clear that the expression ‘considered is not to be construed to be a direction to the respondent authorities to give the settlement to the petitioners. The expression ‘consideration’ means that the case of the petitioners to be looked into from the point of view of their entitlement under the ensuing land policy, of the State respondent which provides that the landless persons are entitled to 1 katha 5 lechas of land. 10. With the above observation, this petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioners shall file an application before the concerned authorities within a period of 15 days from today for settlement of the land in their favour. On the said application being filed, the concerned authorities in the revenue department shall give the petitioners an opportunity of hearing and also allow the petitioners to produce all relevant materials that may be available with them to establish their right to get the settlement. Upon such consideration, the revenue authority shall pass appropriate speaking order rejecting or allowing the case of the petitioners for grant of settlement of the land in question. In the event, the respondent intends to grant settlement in favour of the petitioners, the same shall be done strictly in accordance with the land policy and only to the extent to which the landless persons are entitled to have settlement of Government land. On the application being filed, the aforesaid exercise be carried out by the revenue authorities within a period of 3 (three) months thereafter. It is provided that till such speaking order is passed, the order of status-quo shall be maintained in respect of the possession of the petitioners. It is provided that in the event, the petitioners does not file any such application within the period of 15 days from today, the order of status quo shall not have any effect after the expiry of 15 days from today. Writ petition stands closed. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.