Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010230342022 2025:GAU-AS:12042 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7468/2022 KHARUPETIA AGRICULTURIST MARKETING CO. OP. SOCIETY LTD. AND ANR P.O. KHARUPETIA, REP. JOINTLY BY PRESIDENT NAMELY- SORHAB ALI, S/O. HAZAR ALI, VILL. KHAKJANI, P.O. GHANSIMULI, DIST. DARRANG, ASSAM. 2: GENERAL SECRETARY NAMELY- MD. NABAB ALI S/O. KALIA SHEIKH VILL. BAHABARI P.O. KHARUPETIA DIST. DARRANG ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. REP. BY THE COMM. AND SCEY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06. 2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DARRANG MANGALDAI P.O. AND DIST. DARRANG ASSAM PIN-784145. 3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER DARRANG REVENUE CIRCLE P.O. DALGAON DIST. DARRANG ASSAM PIN-784145 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R SIKDAR, MD A ALI,MR. S I TALUKDAR,D. HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE, GA, ASSAM Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 27.08.2025 Heard Mr. A. R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department, appearing for the respondent no.1 and Mr. M. Chetia, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent nos.2 & 3. 2. The petitioner in the present proceedings has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities for consideration of its application for allotment of a plot of land measuring 3 Bighas covered by Dag No.1618 of Kharupetia town under Dalgaon Revenue Circle, in terms of a recommendation made earlier by the jurisdictional land Advisory Board. The petitioner, in the present writ petition have also raised an apprehension of being evicted from the said plot of land, under their occupation. 3. The petitioners in the present writ proceedings have projected that the petitioner Co-operative society, was established in the year 1956. The petitioners further contended that there are around 700 shareholders and some of them are running shops over a government land measuring 3 Bighas covered by Dag No.1618 in Kharupetia town. 4. The petitioner have further contended that the land in question, was under their occupation since the year 1956 and applications were made before the concerned authority, for settlement of the said parcel of land with them. The claim made by Page No.# 3/6 the petitioner was considered by the jurisdictional Land Advisory Board, and recommendation came to be made in favour of the petitioner Co-operative Society, for settlement of the land under its occupation with it. 5. The petitioner further projected that the recommendations of the jurisdictional Land Advisory Committee, not having been taken to its logical conclusion, the petitioners had approached the authorities by way of filing representations, one of which was so filed on 11.09.2022, praying for settlement of the land in question with the petitioner Co-operative society. The said prayers of the petitioner Society not having been considered, they have instituted the present proceeding with the prayer for being granted the reliefs, noticed, hereinabove. 6. Mr. A. R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, by reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that the petitioner’s Co-operative society being in occupation of the land in question, since 1956, and there also being a recommendation from the jurisdictional Land Advisory Committee, for allotment of the said parcel of land in favour of the petitioner Co-operative society, the respondent authorities could not have kept the matter pending and ought to have taken the recommendation made to its logical conclusion. Mr. A.R. Sikdar, has submitted that the petitioner being a Co-operative society, public interest is involved, inasmuch as, the land in question is utilized for the livelihood of its members, who have set up shops therein, for dealing with farm produce. 7. In the above premises, Mr. A. R. Sikdar, submits that the respondent authorities particularly the respondent no.1, be directed Page No.# 4/6 to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner in the matter, including the representation dated 11.09.2022. 8. Per contra, Mr. M. Chetia, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent nos.2 & 3, by referring to an affidavit filed by the Circle Officer, Dalgaon Revenue Circle, has submitted that on a local enquiry made, it was found that the petitioners society had violated the objectives of a Co-operative marketing society. It was contended that the main projected motto of a Co-operative marketing society is to realize fair price for farm produce, however, the petitioners by violating the objectives of a marketing society, had permitted about 132 persons to occupy and run various business on the plot of land under occupation of the society and the society is earning a good amount from them as monthly rent. Accordingly, he submits that the society not being operated for the motto it was so set up, the prayer of the petitioner’s society would not mandate an acceptance by this Court. 9. Mr. M. Chetia, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent nos.2 & 3, has further submitted that no direction having been received from the competent authority, the District Revenue authorities are not in a position to allot the land in question, in favour of the petitioner society. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 11. The facts noticed hereinabove, are not in dispute. The petitioners have projected that they are in possession of the land in question since 1956 and also that there was a recommendation for a settlement of the land under their possession with it, by the Page No.# 5/6 jurisdictional Land Advisory Committee. However, the said proposal has not been demonstrated to have been taken to its logical conclusion. Accordingly, the petitioners as on date can be only deemed to be encroachers of the said plot of land. Further the contentions raised by the Circle Officer, Dalgaon Revenue Circle, in its affidavit filed on 03.03.2023, has not been countered by the petitioners by way of filing a rejoinder. The Circle Officer, in his said affidavit, in paragraph 12, had contended as follows: “12. That the averments made in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the writ petition are denied by the respondent. In this regard the deponent states that upon local enquiry it is found that the petitioner named as Kharupetia Agriculturist Marketing Cooperative Society Limited has violated the very objectives of a Co-operative Marketing Society. The main motto of a Co-operative Marketing Society is to realize fair price for farmer's products. But the petitioner by violating the objectives of marketing society permitted about 132 persons to sit and run various businesses and the society is earning a sound amount from them as monthly rent from those shops. Therefore the petitioner is milking money from the persons/shopkeepers and became a profitable institution.” 12. A perusal of the said affidavit further goes to reveal that it is the stand of the respondents that the land in question is not presently required by the Government for its use, however, in the event, in future, the land is so required, the petitioners would be vacated, therefrom. 13. In view of the said position, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition need not be detained any further and accordingly be disposed by granting liberty to the petitioner Co- operative Society to file a fresh application before the respondent no.1, i.e. the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Page No.# 6/6 Assam, Revenue Department, praying for settlement of the land in question, with it. Such application be filed within a period of 60(Sixty) days from today. 14. In the event of filing of such application, the respondent no.1 and/or of any other authority competent to consider such application shall consider the same and dispose of the same by way of a speaking order. 15. It is further provided that in the event, in future, the land occupied by the petitioners is so required by the Government for any public purpose, the petitioners shall be evicted, therefrom, only by following the due process of law. 16. With the above observations and directions, the present Writ Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant