Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1397 (GAU)

Augustin Kramsa v. State of Assam

2018-09-18

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. Heard Mr. B.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Chutia, learned standing counsel for the respondent Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council (KAAC). 2. The petitioner who claims to be an indigenous person of Karbi Anglong district states that he is the owner of certain patta land and to that extent has annexed certain land documents, which indicates the particulars of the land. 3. On the aforesaid premises, this writ petition is preferred on the grievance that the authorities in the KAAC have evicted the petitioner and also destroyed his residential structures located over his patta land. 4. On the other hand, it is the stand of the KAAC authorities that the petitioner had not been evicted from his patta land and the eviction was carried out in respect of certain illegal encroachment of the petitioner of some forest land within the KAAC area and in fact such eviction had taken place about 3 km inside the forest area. 5. It is also stated on behalf of the authorities under the KAAC that in respect of his patta land also, the petitioner is indulging in settling certain persons who are not inhabitants of the KAAC area, but are infact persons belonging to some other State. 6. According to the KAAC authorities under the prevailing law only the indigenous people from the KAAC area can be settled with any land within the KAAC area and a person who is not entitled to be settled with any such land cannot be brought in by the petitioner by allowing them to settle over his patta land. 7. In the aforesaid premises, this Court is of the view that the petitioner having his right, title and interest over patta land cannot be evicted from the same by the authorities in the KAAC without following the due procedure of law. But on the other hand, if the petitioner is also in occupation of any further or additional land beyond his patta land and more so, if such land is located within the forest area of the KAAC, under the law, there cannot be any bar from evicting the petitioner from such land by following the procedure of law. 8. But on the other hand, if the petitioner is also in occupation of any further or additional land beyond his patta land and more so, if such land is located within the forest area of the KAAC, under the law, there cannot be any bar from evicting the petitioner from such land by following the procedure of law. 8. Further this Court is also of the view that the land right within the KAAC area being protected under the law to which only the indigenous people are entitled for a settlement, the petitioner cannot bring in any person from any area outside the KAAC area and by taking advantage of his patta land allow them to settle therein. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of by providing that the respondent in the KAAC shall not indulge in evicting the petitioner from his declared patta land without following due procedure of law, which again would mean that there shall not be any bar on the part of the KAAC authorities to evict the petitioner from any land, other than his patta land, which may be under his occupation, be it a land within the forest area or otherwise and in doing so, the authorities would follow the procedure of law. 10. An allegation has also been raised by the petitioner that certain residential structures of the petitioner standing over the patta land had also been demolished and damaged by the authorities for which he is entitled to compensation. 11. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that if the residential structures over the patta land have been illegally damaged by the authorities in the KAAC, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum as may be advised for claiming such damages by establishing that he had residential structures standing on his patta land and the same were illegally damaged by the authorities. 12. As regards the allegation that the petitioner is indulging in settling persons from some other States over his patta land, it is provided that under the law, as applicable to the Karbi Anglong district, the petitioner cannot settle any person over his patta land if such person is otherwise under the law not entitled to a settlement of land in the Karbi Anglong district. 13. 13. Accordingly, in the event, the authorities are of the view that the petitioner had settled any person who is not entitled to a settlement of land in Karbi Anglong, over his patta land, the authorities will be at liberty to evict and remove such persons under the law. 14. It is stated that in the resultant process, the respondents are not allowing the petitioner to construct his residential structures over his patta land. To that extent, it is provided that the respondents in the KAAC shall undertake a survey and identify the patta land of the petitioner and demarcate it and upon doing so, shall not prevent the petitioner from undertaking any construction over his patta land upon such demarcation being made. In terms of the above, writ petition stands disposed of.