Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010210602024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5262/2024 RAJNISH GOSWAMI S/O- LATE RANA GOSWAMI, , H.NO-43, UZAN BAZAR, P.S- LATASIL, GUWAHATI-01, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND REVENUE, ASSAM DISPUR, GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN-781006 2:THE DIRECTORATE OF LAND RECORDS AND SURVEYS ASSAM RUPNAGAR GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN-781032 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI-05 ASSAM 4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE GUWAHATI-05 DIST- KAMRUP (M) Page No.# 2/8 ASSAM 5:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR THE ASSAM SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED M R DEWAN ROAD BAMUNIMAIDAM GHY-21. 6:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HR AND A) OIL INDIA LIMITED (OIL) PL HEAD OF GUWAHATI OFFICE PROJECT (I/C) CORPORATE OFFICE RUKMINIGAON G.S ROAD GUWAHATI-2 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Advocate for the petitioner(s) : Mr. J Ahmed Advocate for the respondent(s) : Ms. PR Mahanta Standing Counsel, Revenue & Disaster Management Deptt. Mr. S Das For respondent No.5 Mr. L Sangtam for respondent No.6 Date on which Judgment is reserved : NA Page No.# 3/8 Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 22.06.2026 Whether the Pronouncement is of the : Yes Operative Part of the Judgment Whether the Full Judgment has been : NA Pronounced JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL) Heard Mr. J Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Ms. PR Mahanta, the learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2, Mr. S Das, the learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent No.5 and Mr. L Sangtam, the learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent No.6. None appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.3 and 4. 2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 06.09.2024 passed by the District Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro), in exercise of the powers under Rule 116 of the Settlement Rules as framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, 1886 (for short ‘the Rules of 1886’). Page No.# 4/8 3. A perusal of the impugned order would show that merely on the ground that the petitioner is not in possession of the land in question, the impugned order was passed, thereby striking out the name of the petitioner's father from Dag No. 1217 of KP Patta No.116, Mouza: Ulubari of village Bamunimaidan and the said Dag No.1217 was made a Government Dag. 4. The issue involved in the instant writ petition relates to as to whether Rule 116 of the Settlement Rules could have been applied to strike out the name of the petitioner's father from Dag No. 1217 of KP Patta No.116 of Mouza: Ulubari of village Bamunimaidan, merely on the ground that the petitioner’s father or the petitioner is not in possession of the land in question. Rule 116 of the Settlement Rules is reproduced hereinunder: “Power of Deputy Commissioner to order the name of a proprietor, of etc., be struck out of register 116.Whenever it comes to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner that any person whose name is recorded in the General Registers as proprietor, settlement-holder or manager of an estate is no longer in possession of any such interest in the estate, the Deputy Commissioner may order the name of such person to be struck out from the register: Provided that the Deputy Commissioner shall not strike out the name of any recorded proprietor or landholder, or manager on behalf of a proprietor or land-holder, without giving him due notice and hearing any objections he may prefer against his Page No.# 5/8 name being struck out.” 5. A perusal of the above-quoted Rule would show that whenever it comes to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner that any person whose name is recorded in the General Registers as a proprietor, settlement holder, or manager of an Estate is no longer in possession of any such interest in the estate, the Deputy Commissioner may order the name of such person to be struck off from the Register. 6. The expression ‘no longer in possession of any such interest in the estate’ is of vital importance inasmuch as, it is only when a person does not have any interest in the estate, the Deputy Commissioner may order the name of such person to be struck off from the Register. The said expression under no circumstances can be equated with the fact situation where the person is not in possession of the land in question. It is further observed that if an interpretation is given that a person who losses possession to another, the person’s name is required to be struck off, it would result in a chaotic situation, and further, the rights constitutionally and statutorily guaranteed would become a choice. 7. This Court also takes note of a judgment of the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bhabani Shankar Page No.# 6/8 Bagaria Vs. State of Assam, Others reported in 2008 4 GLR 134. Paragraph 5 of the said judgment being relevant, is reproduced hereinunder: “A cursory glance at the provisions of rule 116 reflects as if a Deputy Commissioner can strike out the name of any recorded proprietor, settlement-holder or land-holder or manager of an estate from the revenue records if it comes to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner that the person, whose name has been recorded in the General Register as proprietor, settlement holder or manager of an estate is no longer in possession of any such interest in the estate. What is, however, of utmost importance to note is that the expression ‘such interest in the estate’ has been consciously used by the rule- makers in rule 116. It is a settled principle of law that every word used in any statute, rules or regulations must be given its ordinary meaning unless the context indicates otherwise. The expression ‘such interest in the estate’, if construed property, would obviously mean that the mere fact that a person, who is the proprietor, settlement- holder or manager of an estate, is no longer in possession of such estate, the power, under rule 116, to strike out the name of such a person from the revenue records cannot be resorted to. What is also necessary for the purpose of enabling a Deputy Commissioner to take recourse to rule 116 and issue notice under the proviso to rule 116 to the recorded proprietor, settlement-holder or manager is that such person, who is the proprietor, settlement-holder or manager of the estate, must be shown to have ceased too have interest in the land, which is no longer in possession of the estate. If rule 116 is interpreted to mean that a lawful owner will lose his right-over the land merely by an act of trespass by an encroacher, it would mean that if a person can manage, illegally and by dint of sheer muscle power, to trespass into a land, such a trespasser would be entitled to settlement of the land merely because of the fact that the recorded proprietor, settlement holder or manager of the estate is not in possession of the estate or part thereof. Such an interpretation would lead to chaos and lawlessness. An interpretation of a provision, contained in an enactment or rule, which can lead to chaos and disorder in the society, must be eschewed by the courts and the Page No.# 7/8 courts shall favour that the interpretation, which would help maintain orderliness in the society, for, it is orderliness in the society, which the public interest demands and needs and not chaos and disorderliness. Viewed thus, it is clear that Rule 116 would be applicable only when a person, who is the proprietor, settlement-holder or manager of an estate, abandons his interest, as the proprietor, settlement-holder or manager, over such an estate or any part thereof.” 8. In the backdrop of the above, if this Court duly takes note of the impugned order, it would show that the emphasis so given by the Deputy Commissioner is on the aspect that the petitioner or his father is not in possession of the land, without, however, taking into consideration whether the petitioner or his father continued to hold interest over the estate. The payment of the land revenue by the petitioner or his predecessor-in-interest was an ample proof that the petitioner or his father continued to hold interest over the estate. The impugned order dated 06.09.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner is illegal, unauthorized and without jurisdiction. 9. Accordingly the instant writ petition, therefore, stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i). The impugned order dated 06.09.2024 passed by the District Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro), whereby the name of the petitioner's father in respect to the land admeasuring 1 bigha 1 katha 5.94 lechas (16.86 Are) covered by Dag No.1217 of patta No. 116 of village Page No.# 8/8 Bamunimaidan, Mouza: Ulubari was struck off and was made a Government land is bad in law and accordingly set aside and quashed. (ii). The respondents, and more particularly, the District Commissioner Kamrup (Metro), is directed forthwith and not later than 15(fifteen) days from the date a certified copy of this judgment is submitted to correct the records, thereby re-entering the name of the petitioner’s father and thereupon the petitioner in respect to the land in question. (iii). There shall be no order as to costs. 10. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. JUDGE Comparing Assistant