Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010197812022 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6360/2022 PAWAN KUMAR JALAN S/O- LATE BASUDEO JALAN, R/O- 3E, JAGDISHWAR ENCLAVE, R.G. BARUAH ROAD, ZOO ROAD, GUWAHATI, PIN- 781005, DIST. KAMRUP(M), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006. 2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KAMRUP (METRO) GUWAHATI ASSAM 3:THE SETTLEMENT OFFICER GUWAHATI RE-SETTLEMENT OPERATION GUWAHATI ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MS M HAZARIKA, MS. S NEWAR,MR D KHAN Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, REVENUE Page No.# 2/8 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 10.02.2026 Heard Ms. M. Hazarika, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. S. Chetry, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue and Disaster Management, appearing for the respondent no.1 and Mr. H. Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent nos.2 & 3. 2. The petitioner, in the present writ proceeding has presented a challenge to an order dated 08.05.2008 passed by the Settlement Officer, Guwahati, in Misc Case No.95/07-08 cancelling the mutation effected of the name of the petitioner by the Assistant Settlement Officer, in respect of the lands purchased by the petitioner from M/s Tea Leaf Growers and Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd. 3. M/s Tea Leaf Growers and Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd was settled with Government land for establishment of a Training Institute for Tea cultivation, manufacture and allied knowledge. 26 bighas, 7 lechas land was so allotted to the said company at a concessional premium. The said Company transferred 5 bighas of land on 31.12.2004 to the petitioner herein, by way of a registered Sale Deed. On the land being transferred in the name of the petitioner, the petitioner applied for mutation of his name against the plot of land now brought by him from the said company. The said mutation application was allowed and the name of the petitioner was incorporated in the Page No.# 3/8 land records. Thereafter, the petitioner, herein, applied before the Deputy Commissioner (Kamrup), for permission to sale the said plot of land purchased from the above noted Company, to 7 (seven) other purchasers. The said permission was granted by the Deputy Commissioner (Kamrup) vide an order dated 23.09.2005. The petitioner, herein, thereafter applied before the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority(GMDA) seeking permission to transfer the land bought from the said Company to 7 (seven) others individuals. The GMDA authorities on examination of the matter issued a No Objection Certificate (NOC) dated 29.11.2005 to the petitioner, herein, for the purpose of sale for the said parcel of land. Accordingly, the petitioner, herein, executed Sale Deed in favour of the 7 (seven) other purchasers, thereby, transferring the land which was originally bought by him from the said Company. It is seen that out of the 7 (seven) purchasers of the land few of the purchasers had also got their names mutated in the Jamabandi. However, basing on a Government circular dated 05.12.2006, the Settlement Officer, Guwahati, in Misc. Case No.95/07-08 proceeded to cancel the mutation of the land originally belonging to the M/s Tea Leaf Growers and Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd sold to the petitioner, herein, which was again sold to others, on the ground that such sale of land originally by the said Company was in violation of the norms set out in the said circular dated 05.12.2006. The petitioner on coming to learn of the said developments taking place in the matter and also the deletion of his name from the Jamabandi, has instituted in the present proceedings. 4. Ms. M. Hazarika, learned Senior Counsel, by reiterating the facts Page No.# 4/8 noticed, hereinabove, has submitted at the outset that the cancellation of the names of the petitioner from the Jamabandi was so done by the Settlement Officer vide an order dated 08.05.2008 without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, herein. Ms. M. Hazarika has submitted that the Government vide issuance of the said circular dated 05.12.2006 had introduced a prohibition for sale of Government land by the allottees for a period of 10(ten) years from the date of such and/or possession, thereof, whichever is later. She submits that the petitioner having bought the parcel of land, in question, from the Company much prior to the date of issuance of the circular dated 05.12.2006, the prohibition as contained in the circular dated 05.12.2006, could not have been given a retrospective effect and made applicable to a transaction already concluded much prior to date of its issuance. 5. Ms. M. Hazarika, further submits that the petitioner on having his name mutated in the Jamabandi had sold the plot of land bought by him from the Company to 7 (seven) other purchasers after complying with all due procedures. The concerned authorities empowered to issue permissions in this connection had granted the requisite permission for the sale to the petitioner in terms of the Government policy in vogue at the relevant point of time. She accordingly submits that the sale of the land involved, in question, both to the petitioner and thereafter by the petitioner to 7 (seven) others purchasers could not have been interfered with, on the ground of subsequent prohibition brought into effect vide the said communication dated 05.12.2006. In support of her contention that the circular dated 05.12.2006 cannot be given retrospective effect, Ms. M. Hazarika has relied upon the decision of the Page No.# 5/8 Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Ors. Vs. Tata Communication Ltd reported in (2022) SCC online SC (1280). 6. In the above premises Ms. M. Hazarika submits that the order dated 08.05.2008 passed by the Settlement Officer, Guwahati, in Misc Case No.95/07-08 would mandate an interference from this Court. 7. Per contra Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue and Disaster Management, submits that the Government land was allotted to M/s Tea Leaf Growers and Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd. at a concessional rate to facilitate establishment of a Training Institute intended to address the requirement of small tea growers. He submits that the said Institute was not established by the said allottee and the said allottee proceeded to transfer the land involved by way of sale with a profit motive. By referring to the circular dated 05.12.2006, he submits that the same also bring within its fold Government lands which were so allotted to various allottees prior to the issuance of the said circular wherein 10(ten) years have not lapsed since the date of the allotment made and/or possession taken over of the Government land by such allottee. He submit that on the date of cancellation of the mutation by Settlement Officer 10 (ten) years having not lapsed since the date of allotment made of Government land with the said Company, the cancellation of the mutation effected in respect of the petitioner would not mandate an interference from this Court. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials brought on record. 9. The materials brought on record reveals that M/s Tea Leaf Page No.# 6/8 Growers and Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd., had admittedly transferred a parcel of land, out of the land allotted to it by the Government at concessional rates, to the petitioner herein. The said parcel of land as sold to the petitioner was so sold after due permission for the same was granted by the competent authorities and it is seen that, thereafter, the land was duly mutated in the name of the petitioner, herein. When the said Sale Deeds were so executed by the Company in favour of the petitioner, herein, which had so occasioned in the month of December, 2005, the stipulation as made in the circular dated 05.12.2006 was admittedly not in existence. It is seen that the petitioner, herein, after receiving due permissions from the concerned authorities had transferred the said land by way of Sale to 7 (seven) other persons. The sale made by the petitioner of the land purchased by him from the said company is also found to have so occasioned prior to the issuance of the said circular dated 05.12.2006. 10. It is in the above background that this Court would now examine the order dated 08.05.2008 passed by the Settlement Officer, Guwahati, in Misc Case No.95/07-08, cancelling the mutation effected in the name of the petitioner with regard to the land bought by him from the said Company. This Court at the outset finds that the impugned order dated 08.05.2008 was passed by the Settlement Officer without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, herein, and that too by giving retrospective application to the policy as introduced vide the circular dated 05.12.2006. When the transfer of land by way of sale had occasioned between the Company and the petitioner, the prohibition as introduced vide the circular dated 05.12.2006 was not applicable. Accordingly even with due diligence, Page No.# 7/8 the petitioner could not be attributed with the knowledge that the land being purchased by him was not so permissible to be sold before lapse of a particular period of time w.e.f. the date when the original allotee had possessed the same. The execution of the registered Sale Deed had conferred valuable title on the petitioner and thereafter the name of the petitioner was also mutated in the Jamabandi. 11. The prohibition as introduced vide the circular dated 05.12.2006 in the considered view of this Court is laudable and has been so introduced to achieve a particular object, but in the facts and circumstance of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the transactions involved in the matter having occasioned much prior to the issuance of the said circular dated 05.12.2006, the prohibition introduced therein, could not have been given retrospective application and thereby interfere with bonafide transactions already carried out in the matter. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (supra) had drawn the following conclusion : “30. The power to make retrospective legislations enables the Legislature to obliterate an amending Act completely and restore the law as it existed before the amending Act, but at the same time, administrative/executive orders or circulars, as the case may be, in the absence of any legislative competence cannot be made applicable with retrospective effect. Only law could be made retrospectively if it was expressly provided by the Legislature in the statute. Keeping in mind the afore-stated principles of law on the subject, we are of the view that applicability of the circular dated 12th June, 2012 to be effective retrospectively from 1" April 2009, in revising the infrastructure charges, is not legally sustainable and to this extent, we are in agreement with the view expressed by the Tribunal under the impugned judgment.” Page No.# 8/8 13. Applying the conclusions drawn by this Court, hereinabove, as well as the conclusions drawn by the learned Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (supra), to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has made out a case for interference with the impugned order dated 08-05-2008 passed by the Settlement Officer, Guwahati, in Misc Case No.95/07-08 cancelling the mutation effected in respect of the petitioner and accordingly the said order dated 08.05.2008 stands set aside in so far as it concerns the petitioner, herein. 14. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant