Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 822 (GAU)

Jyoti Industrial Society v. State of Assam

2017-06-21

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2017
JUDGMENT & ORDER Heard Mr. A. Roshid, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.P. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The petitioner society is functioning in the name of “Jyoti Industrial Society” and is registered under the Registration of Societies Act. It is stated that a plot of land measuring 22 bighas 3 kaths 8 lechas covered by Dag Nos.226 and 227 of Village No.1 Pipalpukhuri Kisam, Mouza-Kaki, District-Nagaon was under the physical and undisputed possession of one late Surjya Singha during his lifetime since 1950 and that the said Surjya Singha was continuously enjoying the land by way of agricultural activities. In the year, 1974, local people constituted a society for promotion of agricultural production and in the year 1980, the petitioner society was registered with Sri L. Thoiba Singha as its secretary. It is stated that Sri L. Thoiba Singha is the son of aforesaid Surjya Singha, who was in possession of the concerned land. 3. After its registration, the said society had submitted an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon for allotment of the aforesaid land in the name of Jyoti Industrial Society. The said application was placed before the Sub-Divisional Land Advisory Committee, Hojai, Sub-Division and the Advisory Committee in its meeting held on 09.07.1987 had adopted the resolution No.1985, whereby, approval was given for allotment of 22 bighas 3 kathas 8 lechas of land under Dag No.226 and 227 of Village No.1 Pipalpukhhuri Kisam under Nagaon district in favour of the petitioner Jyoti Industrial Society. To this effect, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hojai had also issued a certificate dated 03.11.1987 stating that the land had been approved by the Land Advisory Committee on 09.07.1987. The petitioner also refers to a letter dated 08.09.1995 of the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon, whereby, they were informed that the value of the allotted land was fixed at Rs.50,000/- and that the local government Gaonburah had issued a certificate in the year 1996 that the land is under their possession. 4. The Circle Officer, Lanka Revenue Circle had issued a letter dated 20.12.2010 to the SDO, Hojai, stating that although the land was allotted in favour of the petitioner society, but at present, the land is not under their possession and accordingly a proposal was made for cancellation of the allotment. 5. 4. The Circle Officer, Lanka Revenue Circle had issued a letter dated 20.12.2010 to the SDO, Hojai, stating that although the land was allotted in favour of the petitioner society, but at present, the land is not under their possession and accordingly a proposal was made for cancellation of the allotment. 5. At that stage, the writ petitioner had preferred a writ petition being WP(C) No.3250/2013 praying for a direction to the respondent authorities to take necessary steps for settling the land with the petitioner society. Accordingly by the order dated 21.06.2013, this Court had directed the respondent authorities to decide the matter of settlement. 6. In the aforesaid situation, the petitioner is aggrieved by a letter dated 21.01.2014 of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar addressed to the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Revenue, Nagaon. In the letter, it has been stated that the Land Advisory Committee, Hojai in its meeting held on 13.12.2013 had discussed in detail the recommendation of the Circle Officer in its letter dated 20.12.2010 and recommended for cancellation of the allotment made in favour of the petitioner. 7. It is stated that the Land Advisory Committee after discussion had proposed to cancel the approval given in its earlier meeting dated 09.07.1987 and had decided to keep the land in question reserved for allotment to government institution. 8. On question being asked to the respondent authorities, as to whether any notice of hearing was given to the petitioner prior to the said decision of the Land Advisory Committee, in its meeting held on 13.12.2013, it has been stated that no such notice or any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before the decision of the Advisory Committee was taken for cancelling the earlier approval granted to the petitioner. 9. It is noticed that earlier approval granted to the petitioner by the Land Advisory Committee it is meeting held on 09.07.1987 was made by following the due procedure of law and in view of the such approval, a legal right had accrued to the petitioner for obtaining the settlement of the land. As the legal right had already been accrued to the petitioner any further action on the part of the respondent authorities to cancel the approval would result in adverse civil consequence to the petitioner. 10. As the legal right had already been accrued to the petitioner any further action on the part of the respondent authorities to cancel the approval would result in adverse civil consequence to the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that before taking any decision for cancelling the approval, the principle of natural justice is required to be followed and the petitioner is entitled atleast a hearing before any such decision to cancel is taken. 11. From the letter of the Circle Officer dated 20.12.2010, it transpires that the decision to cancel the approval in favour of the petitioner was initiated on the recommendation of the Circle Officer on the ground that the petitioners are not in possession of the land in question at present. The question as to whether the petitioners are in possession or not is a factual determination and no conclusion can be arrived at by the respondent authorities as regards the possession of the land without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. 12. In view of the aforesaid, this Court deems it appropriate that before taking any decision to cancel the allotment made in favour of the petitioner by the Land Advisory Committee, in its meeting held on 09.07.1987, the petitioner is entitled to an opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, it is directed that the Deputy Commissioner shall give the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and allow them to produce any relevant material that they desire to produce to substantiate that they are still in possession of the land in question. 13. Upon giving the petitioner a hearing in the manner as provided hereinabove, the Deputy Commissioner shall pass a final order on the question as to whether the land allotted to the petitioner is required to be cancelled or the same is to be retained. 14. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Any final order that the Deputy Commissioner may pass shall merge with the decision of the Land Advisory Committee dated 13.12.2013 and the said final order shall prevail over any earlier decision. In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of.