Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010016232014 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5189/2014 DULAL GOGOI and ANR S/O LT. PADMA GOGOI, R/O TOWN TINIALI, W/NO.4, P.O. and P.S. DHAKUAKHANA, DIST- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN-787055 2: GOPAL KONWAR S/O LT. HUKHESWARI KONWAR R/O TOWN TINIALI W/NO.4 P.O. and P.S. DHAKUAKHANA DIST- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN-78705 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOV.T OF ASSAM, REVENUE SETTLEMENT DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-6 2:THE DY. COMMISSIONER NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM 3:THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER CIVIL DHAKUAKHANA DIST- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM 4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER DHAKUAKHANA REVENUE CIRCLE P.O. DHAKUAKHANA DIST- LAKHIMPUR ASSA Page No.# 2/6 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S SAHU, MR.K GOGOI,MSG BORA,MR.S M SARMA,MR.G C PHUKAN Advocate for the Respondent : , ,,GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 28-08-2025 Heard Shri A. R. Tahbildar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri N. Goswami, learned State Counsel as well as Ms. N. Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department. 2. The petitioners, who are 2 in nos. are aggrieved by a notice dated 22.09.2014 issued by the Circle Officer, Dhakuakhana Revenue Circle directing them to vacate the land by stating that they are in unauthorized occupation of land in the name of Industrial Training Institute. 3. As per the facts projected, the petitioners are flood affected persons and are in occupation of the plots of land since the year 1980. The said plot is covered by Dag No. 195 of Mohghuli Chapori map Dhakuakhana mouza under Dhakuakhana Revenue Circle and they have constructed permanent structure. It is also claimed that they are in peaceful possession and are paying the revenue and their names are also reflected in the Chitha of the concerned village. 4. Shri Tahbildar, the learned counsel has submitted that the land under the occupation of the petitioners were de-reserved vide a communication dated 15.02.1997 in spite of which the impugned order dated 22.09.2014 has been Page No.# 3/6 passed. 5. By drawing the attention of this Court to Rule 18 of the Rules under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that though the aforesaid provision is mentioned in the impugned notice, the same has no application. He has elaborated his submission that certain conditions have been mentioned for such a notice to be made under Rule 18 (2) and those conditions are not present in the instant case as the notice itself states that it is land of the ITI and not Government land. The learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the revenue receipts. He has also referred to the proposal for settlement of the land in question and has submitted that the petitioners are bona fide occupiers. 6. Shri Goswami, learned State Counsel has submitted that two affidavits-in- opposition have been filed by the respondent nos. 2 & 4 on 29.04.2019. It is submitted that so far as the petitioner no. 1 is concerned, though there was a proposal for de-reserving, the same could not be done as the land in question is grazing land. However, the said affidavit has also mentioned the case pertaining to the mother of the petitioner no. 2 - Smt. Hukheswari Konwar regarding a proposal which was taken by the Sub-Divisional Land Advisory Committee (SDLAC) in its meeting held on 23.09.1997. 7. Ms. Bordoloi, the learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department has supported the views expressed by the learned State Counsel and has also submitted that so far as the grazing lands are concerned, the same are required to be kept encroachment free and in this connection, she has relied upon the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh Vs State of Punjab reported in (2011) 11 SCC 396. Page No.# 4/6 8. Shri Tahbildar, the learned counsel has informed that the clients are not in touch and therefore, he is not in a position to assert regarding the settlement with the petitioner no. 2. 9. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that Rule 18(2) is not applicable, as the conditions mentioned in the Rule are not fulfilled. The specific contention is that the land in question is the land belonging to the ITI and not Government land. 10. The aforesaid contention is however unable to be accepted by this Court as ITI is a Government institute and it automatically flows that the property including the land is Government land. So far as the aspect of payment of revenue is concerned, a close perusal of the receipt would show that the payments are in the form of bedokhali jorimana which in other words is a fine for unauthorized occupation. In this connection, one may gainfully refer to the case of State of Assam Vs Radha Kanoo reported in (1996) 8 SCC 692 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified the position that Touzi Bahira or bedokhali jorimana is only a fine and would not vest any right to the occupier. It also transpires that the land in question is Go Sarania (grazing land). From the two affidavits filed on 29.04.2019 it however appears that there was a proposal for de-reservation of land and in fact so far as the mother of the petitioner no. 2 is concerned, there was a proposal by the SDLAC in its meeting held on 23.09.1997 for settlement of a plot of land. It appears that so far as the petitioner no. 2 is concerned, there may not be any existing grievance. So far as the petitioner no. 1 is concerned, it has been stated that the proposal for settlement was rejected as the land was reserved for grazing. It has also been stated that a proposal for de-reservation of land in question was also accepted Page No.# 5/6 for certain other plots of land. 11. Shri Goswami, the learned State Counsel has placed before this Court written instruction dated 28.11.2023. As per the same, so far as the petitioner no. 1 is concerned, the settlement could not be done as the status of the land in question is VGR land and has not been de-reserved till date. 12. In the aforesaid case of Jagpal (supra) it has been clearly laid down that grazing lands are community lands and are not to be de-reserved for any private person. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are extracted herein below: “23. Before parting with this case we give directions to all the State Governments in the country that they should prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorised occupants of the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat/poramboke/shamlat land and these must be restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the common use of villagers of the village. For this purpose the Chief Secretaries of all State Governments/Union Territories in India are directed to do the needful, taking the help of other senior officers of the Governments. The said scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of such illegal occupant, after giving him a show-cause notice and a brief hearing. Long duration of such illegal occupation or huge expenditure in making constructions thereon or political connections must not be treated as a justification for condoning this illegal act or for regularising the illegal possession. Regularisation should only be permitted in exceptional cases e.g. where lease has been granted under some government notification to landless labourers or members of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or where there is already a school, dispensary or other public utility on the land." 13. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that so far as the petitioner no. 2 is concerned, there is no requirement of any further adjudication as the grievance appears to have been redressed. So far as the petitioner no. 1 is concerned, the relief prayed for cannot be granted by this Page No.# 6/6 Court in view of the aforesaid discussion and settled position of law. The petitioner no. 1 is however at liberty to apply for settlement of land under the existing policy including the Basundhara Scheme. 14. Copy of the written instruction dated 28.11.2023 is made part of the record. 15. Writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant