Page No. 1/8 GAHC010274272024 2025:GAU-AS:1444 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7049/2024 DHANADA SARMAH W/O- LATE DIJU KUMAR SARMAH, R/O- WARD NO-4, TANGLA TOWN, P.O AND P.S- TANGLA, DIST- UDALGURI, BTAD, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT JANATA BHAWAN, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006 2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL BODOFA NWGWR KOKRAJHAR BTAD ASSAM. 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER UDALGURI BTAD ASSAM. 4:THE LAND ADVISORY BOARD BHERGAON SUB DIVISION REP. BY THE THE CHAIRMAN/SECRETARY DIST.- UDALGURI BTAD ASSAM. 5:THE CIRCLE OFFICER HARISINGA REVENUE CIRCLE TANGLA Page No. 2/8 P.O. TANGLA DIST.- UDALGURI BTAD ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : K RAHMAN, MR. SAIDUL ALOM,MR. S K ROY Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPT, SC, BTC BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY JUDGMENT Date : 07.02.2025 Heard Mr. S.K. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. G. Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue & Disaster Management Department for the respondent no. 1; Mr. R.K. Mushahary, learned Standing Counsel, BTC for the respondent nos. 2, 4 & 5; and Mr. S. Baruah, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent no. 3. 2. The subject-matter of this writ petition is a plot of land [Government khas land], measuring 1 Katha 9 Lessas, situate at Tangla Town, Mouza – Dakua Harisinga Revenue Circle, District – Udalguri, BTC, Assam [‘the subject-plot’ for short]. This is the second round of litigation in respect of the matter of settlement of the subject-plot. 3. The petitioner is the wife of one Late Diju Kumar Sarmah. It is stated that when Diju Kumar Sarmah was alive, he instituted a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 5618/2022 seeking a direction to the State respondents to grant settlement of the subject-plot in his favour. The claim was made on the ground that the family of Diju Kumar Sarmah was in occupation of the subject-plot which is a Government khas land, for a long period of time. During the pendency of the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 5618/2022, Diju Kumar Sarmah expired and after his demise, the original writ petitioner, that is, Diju Kumar Sarmah was substituted by his wife/legal representative, Dhanada Sarmah, who is also the present petitioner here and who pursued the writ petition. 4. It was urged in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 5618/2022 that the family of the Page No. 3/8 petitioner was in occupation of the subject-plot since long and in view of their such long occupation, the family would be entitled for allotment/settlement of the subject-plot. It was canvassed that the original writ petitioner preferred an application for such allotment/settlement and the respondent authorities were taking a long time to process the application for allotment/settlement of the subject-plot. In the course of hearing of the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 5618/2022, it was stated that the Circle Officer, Harisinga Revenue Circle after processing the proposal for allotment/settlement in respect of the subject-plot, had forwarded the proposal along with the necessary report to the Member Secretary of the concerned Land Advisory Board for further consideration. It was, thus, contended that as the respondent authorities had not brought the process of allotment/settlement of the subject- plot to any conclusion, the petitioner had to institute the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 5618/2022 seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to process and pass necessary order on the application seeking allotment/allotment of the subject-plot. 5. In the course of hearing of the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 5618/2022, the learned Standing Counsel, BTC had submitted that the proposal of allotment/settlement in respect of the subject-plot was under process in the Land Revenue Department, BTC and a decision, in accordance with law, would be taken in that connection. 6. Taking note of the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 5618/2022 was disposed of by an Order dated 07.02.2024 with a direction to the respondent authorities to bring the proposal regarding allotment/settlement of the subject-plot processed in respect of the petitioner to a conclusion. It was further observed that the respondent authorities should bring the process to a conclusion with utmost expedition, but within an outer limit of three months from 07.02.2024. 7. It transpires that prior to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 5618/2022, the Secretary, BTC had accorded approval to the proposal for settlement of the subject-plot and the decision regarding approval for allotment/settlement of the subject-plot was communicated to the Circle Officer, Harisinga Revenue Circle by a Communication bearing no. BTC/LR-580/2022/61 dated 17.01.2024. For ready reference, the said Communication are Page No. 4/8 quoted hereinbelow, :- No. BTC/LR-580/2022/61 Dated Kokrajhar, the 17th January, 2024 From : XXXXXX Secretary Bodoland Territorial Council Kokrajhar. To : The Circle Officer, Harisinga Revenue Circle, Harisinga, District – Udalguri. Sub : Approval for settlement of land Ref : No. HRC/Misc-2/2022/63. Dt.30/01/2023 Sir, With reference to the subject cited above, i am directed to say that the Boroland Territorial Council is pleased to approve the proposal for settlement of land to the following beneficiary submitted by you vide letter under reference which was duly approved by the SDLAC, Bhergaon Sub-Division in it’s meeting held on 07/11/2022 at Kalaigaon Revenue Circle, Kalaigaon. SL. No. Name of Applicant Area of land Dag No. Rev. Village/Town Class of land 01 Diju Kr. Sarma, S/O Lt. Akshay Kr. Sarma R/O Tangla Town W/No. 4 00B- 01K- 09L 1563 Tangla Town No. 2 Residen tial Page No. 5/8 The land record may be corrected after realisation of the premiums and deposit the premium through Treasury Challan/Bank Draft under the Head of Account “8443” Civil Deposit – Personal Deposit in favour of Principal Secretary, BTC, Kokrajhar payable at SBI, Kokrajhar Branch. This has reference of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court’s Case no. W.P.[C] 5618/2022 : Diju Kumar Sarma vs. The State of Assam & Ors. Yours faithfully, Secretary Bodoland Territorial Council Kokrajhar 8. The present petition is preferred by the petitioner who was also the petitioner in W.P. [C] no. 5618/2022 after substitution, seeking inter-alia a direction to the State respondents to realise the premium of the allotment / settlement of the subject-plot, measuring 1 Katha 9 Lessas, as fixed in a proposal dated 28.12.2010, which was subsequently approved by the Sub-Divisional Land Advisory Committee, Bhergaon Sub-Division on 07.11.2022. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the husband of the petitioner submitted the Kabula application in the prescribed form as far back as in the year 2010 and the Circle Officer, Harisinga Revenue Circle after processing the said Kabula application and preparing a report, forwarded the proposal to the Member Secretary, Land Settlement Advisory Board, Bhergaon by his Office Letter dated 28.12.2010. But despite submission of the proposal in the year 2010 for allotment/settlement of the subject-plot, the process was not brought to its logical conclusion for more than a decade and in such circumstances, the writ petition, W.P.[C] 5618/2022 was preferred. The learned petitioner has further contended that it is the rate which was prevailing in the year 2010 which should be made applicable and payable as premium for settlement of the subject-plot. But the Circle Officer, Harisinga Revenue Circle has arbitrarily fixed Rs. 60,00,000/- per Bigha as the rate for settlement of the subject-plot, measuring 1 Katha 9 Lessas, thereby, reporting that the Page No. 6/8 petitioner would require to deposit a sum of Rs. 17,40,000/- as premium for the purpose of settlement of the subject-plot. It is his contention that such fixation of premium is arbitrary and discriminatory. Mr. Roy has further submitted that the petitioner’s proposal for settlement of the subject-plot was forwarded with a positive report as far back as in the year 2010 by the Circle Officer, Harisinga Revenue Circle along with other proposals and it was only the proposal of settlement of the subject-plot in favour of the petitioner which was treated discriminatorily as other proposals of settlement of lands in the vicinity of the subject-plot were approved and settled by the respondent authorities at a much quicker time. 10. To buttress his submissions, Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the observations made in Paragraph 14 in the case of Mahadeo vs. Sovan Devi rendered in Civil Appeal no. 5876 of 2022 [decided on 30.08.2022], quoted and referred to in the case of Delhi Development Authority vs. Hello Home Education Society, 2024 INSC 33. 11. Mr. Mushahary, learned Standing Counsel, BTC, who was asked to obtain instructions on 20.01.2025, has submitted that he has received para-wise comments in deference to the Order dated 20.01.2025. On the basis of the instructions communicated to him vide a Communication bearing no. BTC/LR-70/2025/51 dated 03.02.2025 by the Joint Secretary, Bodoland Territorial Council [BTC], Kokrajhar, he has submitted that the subject-plot in respect of which the proposal for settlement was approved in the year 2022, had been considered as per the zonal valuation prevailing at the relevant time of the year 2022. After identification of the subject-plot and its location, the valuation has been calculated at Rs. 17,40,000/- as the subject-plot falls within the category of Residential Site – II and within 100 meters of the PWD Road. He has further submitted that in the approval accorded in the year 2022, the amount of premium to be realized in respect of the subject-plot was not mentioned as the premium had to be calculated as per zonal valuation rate, not as per the rate prevailing on the date of application for allotment/settlement of the Government land, submitted by the petitioner. 12. I have given due consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the pleadings in the writ petition and the para-wise Page No. 7/8 comments, placed by the learned Standing Counsel, BTC. 13. It is noticed that by the Circle Officer, Harisinga Revenue Circle forwarded the proposal for allotment/settlement in respect of the subject-plot to the Member Secretary, Land Settlement Advisory Board, Bhergaon on 28.12.2010, with a favourable report mentioning that at that point of time, valuation per Bigha was Rs. 2,00,000/- per Katha Rs. 40,000/-. 14. This Court is of the considered view that mere pendency of an application for allotment/settlement of land does not create any vested right in an applicant. Right accrues only when approval is accorded by the competent authority. The reason is that approval is accorded after examining a host of factors and on the basis of the scrutiny of application, including eligibility and status of the applicant and the documents submitted therewith. The application goes through scrutiny at various levels and the eligibility of the applicant is to be examined qua the extant Land Policy. There is always a possibility of an application not meeting the requisite criteria for according approval for settlement, meaning thereby, there is always a possibility of rejection of an application. Until and unless an application complete in all respects is approved, it remains an application only and no right can be claimed on the basis of such an application. A proposal cannot be equated with an approval. Otherwise, the approval will lose all significance. The logical conclusion is that the right of an applicant accrues only when the approval has been accorded by the competent authority. As a corollary, it is the zonal valuation prevailing at the time of according the approval which the applicant who has been granted the settlement, has to deposit. Merely because at the time of processing of the application a lesser zonal valuation rate was prevailing, the same cannot be the rate which the applicant can claim to be payable at the later point of time when the approval has been accorded. Thus, in the considered view of this Court, the petitioner has to deposit the zonal valuation rate prevailing at the time the approval was accorded by the competent authority for settlement of the subject-plot in favour of the applicant-writ petitioner. 15. Paragraph 14 of the Mahadeo [supra] reads as under : - Page No. 8/8 14. It is well settled that inter-departmental communications are in the process of consideration for appropriate decision and cannot be relied upon as a basis to claim any right. This Court examined the said question in a judgment reported as Omkar Sinha vs. Sahadat Khan. Reliance was placed on Bachhittar Singh vs. State of Punjab to hold that merely writing something on the file does not amount to an order. Before something amounts to an order of the State Government, two things are necessary. First, the order has to be expressed in the name of the Governor as required by clause [1] of Article 166 and second, it has to be communicated. As already indicated, no formal order modifying the decision of the Revenue Secretary was ever made. Until such an order is drawn up, the State Government cannot, in our opinion, be regarded as bound by what was stated in the file. 16. On going through the above observations made in Mahadeo [supra], this Court finds that the observations made therein do not assist the case of the petitioner in any manner. The matter of settlement in respect of the subject-plot has been crystallized only when the approval was accorded by the competent authority in the respondent BTC and communicated vide Communication dated 17.01.2024, extracted above. The decision to approve the settlement mentioned in the Communication dated 17.01.2024 was also communicated to the petitioner simultaneously. 17. As the rate indicated by the respondent BTC authorities payable as premium is in accordance with the zonal violation rate prevailing at the date of approval, that is, 17.01.2024, this Court does not find any infirmity in the rate of premium fixed by the respondent BTC authorities for settlement of the subject-plot in question in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the grounds agitated by the petitioner in this petition are found to be bereft of any merits. 18. Consequently, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. No cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant