Page No. 1/7 GAHC010033742024 2025:GAU-AS:923 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/952/2024 RAJANI KANTA SEAL @ RAJANI SEAL S/O LT GOPAL SEAL R/O VILL- DEOHATI PART -I P.O- ABHAYAPURI P.S- ABHAYAPURI DIST - BONGAIGAON, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006. 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM. REVENUE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI -781006 3:THE SETTLEMENT OFFICER GOALPARA P.O. GOALPARA DISTRICT GOALPARA ASSAM. 4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BONGAIGAON P.O- BONGAIGAON DISTRICT BONGAIGAON ASSAM. 5:THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BONGAIGAON P.O. BONGAIGAON DISTRICT- BONGAIGAON ASSAM. Page No. 2/7 6:THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER NORTH SALMARA DISTRICT- BONGAIGAON ASSAM. 7:THE ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT OFFICER SRIJANGRAM CIRCLE ABHYAPURI DISTRICT- BONGAIGAON ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H DAS, D BARUAH Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, REVENUE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 27.01.2025 Heard Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. P.R. Mahanta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for the respondent nos. 1 & 2; and Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. P.K. Medhi, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 – 7. 2. The case of the petitioner is that after allotment of a plot of land, measuring 3 Kathas 15 Lechas, situate at Village – Deohati Part-I, Srijangram Revenue Circle, Abhayapuri, District – Bongaigaon [‘the subject-plot’, for short], his name was mutated in respect of the subject- plot on 30.08.1998. But in view of a Communication dated 16.07.1999 of the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue Department, the name of the petitioner stood deleted qua the subject-plot in the revenue records and the status of the subject-plot changed to Government khas land without any notice to the petitioner. The petitioner has stated that the said Communication dated 16.07.1999 has been set aside in a writ proceeding. The present writ petition has been preferred seeking restoration of the petitioner’s name as patta holder in respect of the subject-plot, measuring 3 Kathas 15 Lechas, situate at Village – Deohati Part-I, Srijangram Revenue Circle, Abhayapuri, District – Page No. 3/7 Bongaigaon, by directing respondent authorities, more particularly, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Srijangram Revenue Circle [the respondent no. 7] to correct the land records pertaining to the subject-plot measuring 3 Kathas 15 Lechas. 3. As per a Letter dated 25.08.1998, the possession of the subject-land measuring 3 Kathas 15 Lechas, covered by Dag no. 35/242 in Abhayapuri Town, was being enjoyed by Rajani Seal under Bijni Raj Estate Touzi no. 704, from a date much prior to the acquisition of the subject-land under the Acquisition of Zamindari Act and after the last settlement operation, the subject-land had become khas. In the said Letter, the respondent no. 5 had directed the respondent no. 7 to correct the revenue land records in favour of the petitioner in respect of the subject-land, in terms of the guidelines contained in an Office Memorandum no. RSS/242/82/796 dated 16.07.1988. Pursuant to a direction contained in the Letter dated 25.08.1998, the name of the petitioner stood mutated in respect of the subject-land, covered by Dag no. 35/242 & Patta no. 70, by a Correction Order dated 30.08.1998 passed by the respondent no. 7. 4. The Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue Department issued the Communication to the Settlement Officer, Goalpara & Bongaigaon, District – Goalpara vide Memo no. RLR.49/99/70 on 16.07.1999 on the subject-matter : ‘Correction of land records’. It was thereby conveyed that it came to the notice of the Government that the Assistant Settlement Officer, Srijangram Circle had corrected the land records in Abhayapuri Town on the basis of some letters/orders sent by different Additional Deputy Commissioners of Bongaigaon District by-passing the Settlement Officers. It was further conveyed that all such corrections were ab-initio void and therefore, were liable to be cancelled. By forwarding 38 nos. of such letters, the Settlement Officer, Goalpara & Bongaigaon was directed to take immediate steps for cancellation of the corrections of record on the strength of those 38 nos. of letters and to correct the land records bringing the lands to Khas status. 5. It is the further case of the petitioner that the direction made by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue Department vide the Communication dated 16.07.1999 was not in the knowledge of the petitioner for a long time. The petitioner had Page No. 4/7 constructed his residential house on the subject-land after getting his name mutated in the revenue records. However, the petitioner came to know later on that pursuant to the Communication dated 16.07.1999, the Assistant Settlement Officer by an Order bearing no. 376 dated 16.08.1999 cancelled the patta issued in favour of the petitioner and the subject- plot was made Government khaas land. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner herein as the petitioner no. 7 along with 16 others had approached this Court by way of a writ petition i.e. W.P.[C]/5063/1999. 6. The writ petition, W.P.[C]/5063/1999 has been disposed vide Order dated 15.12.2005 after hearing the parties and it was interalia observed as follows : “ …… I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the contents of the writ petition as well as the annexures appended thereto. There is no dispute regarding issuance of the office memorandum dated 16.7.88 by the Government of Assam, Revenue Department, asking the revenue authorities to make necessary enquiry about the claim of the petitioners over the land in the erstwhile Estate upon production of written convincing documents. It appears from the order dated 17.8.98 of the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner that the corrections of the revenue record the names of the petitioners were allowed, but said order does not reflect making any enquiry by the revenue authority, namely, Settlement Officer or by Assistant Settlement officer. Therefore, no fault can be found in issuing the order dated 16.7.88 of the Commissioner & Secretary, Revenue Department but at the same time the office memorandum dated 16.7.88 impose a duty on the Revenue authority to make an enquiry about the claim of the petitioners, wherein the revenue authorities are to verify the documents to be produced by the petitioners in support of their claim. In view of the aforesaid position, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Settlement Officer, Bongaigaon to make an enquiry about the claim of the petitioners in terms of the office memorandum dated 16.7.88 or any other office memorandum issued for that purpose and if upon enquiry they are found to be entitled to any benefit under the said office memorandum the same shall be given to them. The said exercise is directed to be completed within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of Page No. 5/7 this order. Since this Court by order dated 4.10.99 while issuing notice of motion has already directed the respondents not to disturb the possession of the petitioners in respect of the land in question, the said possession shall continue till such enquiry is made and completed and the final order is passed by the competent revenue authority. ...............” 7. From a perusal of the said directions given by this Court on 15.12.2005, it appears that Settlement Officer, Bongaigaon was directed to make an enquiry about the claim of the petitioners in W.P.[C] No.5063/1999 which included the petitioner herein, in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 16.07.1988 or any other Office Memorandum issued for that purpose and if upon enquiry they are found to be entitled to any benefit under the said Office Memorandum the same shall be given to them. This exercise was directed to be done within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 8. It is relevant to mention that by the Office Memorandum dated 16.07.1988 issued by the Government of Assam, Revenue Department, the revenue authorities of the erstwhile Goalpara District were asked to correct the records in respect of the lands enjoyed from the Zamindari days and convert the lands to khas Government land by giving separate Dag nos. in place of original Dag nos. Such corrections were directed to be made after an enquiry and after verifying the documents to be produced by the applicants in support of their respective claims. The petitioner has claimed that the patta was issued in his favour in the manner, mentioned above, pursuant to abolition of the Zamindari system. 9. Subsequently, two petitioners [Brindaban Choudhury and Ajit Roy] preferred a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 4594/2020 challenging inter-alia the Communication dated 16.07.1999. After consideration of the entire sequence of events preceding the Office Memorandum dated 16.07.1988 which was a subject-matter in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 5063/1999 and the Communication dated 16.07.1999 of the Government of Assam, Revenue Department, a co- ordinate Bench of this Court has set aside the Communication dated 16.07.1999 of the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue Department in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 4594/2020 by an Order dated 09.02.2022. The Order dated 09.02.2022 Page No. 6/7 had further observed as under :- 7. …. The record reveals that it was only on account of the communication dated 16.7.1999 such benefit has not been restored to the petitioners herein. In view of setting aside and quashing of the communication dated 16.7.1999 by this court, the Respondent Authorities shall proceed purely on the entitlement on the basis of the Office Memorandum dated 16.7.1988 and the directions contained in the said communication dated 16.9.1999 should be treated as non est. 8. In view of the above, the petitioners may approach the concerned Respondent No.4 seeking mutation of their names on the basis of the Deed of Sale executed on 17.09.1998 and the Respondent No. 4 shall deal with such application in terms with the observations made herein above. 10. The learned counsel for the parties are not in dispute that the present petitioner, in essence, is similarly situated with the two petitioners in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 4594/2020. The learned counsel for the parties are also in agreement that a similar direction can be issued in case of the present petitioner also as has been passed in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 4594/2020 in respect of the two petitioners therein. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that pursuant to the Order dated 09.02.2022, the petitioners therein have already been granted the benefit. 11. By the Order dated 09.02.2022, the Communication dated 16.07.1999 has already been set aside. As the present petitioner has claimed to be similarly situated with the two petitioners in W.P.[C] no. 4594/2020, this Court is of the considered view that a similar order is called for in the case of the present petitioner also. In such view of the matter, the petitioner is directed to approach the respondent no. 4 seeking mutation of his name in respect of the subject-plot on the basis of the allotment granted to him on 25.08.1998 by the Letter no. BRKG/COR/15 dated 25.08.1998 of the Additional Deputy Commissioner [Revenue], Bongaigaon and the respondent no. 4 shall deal with such application in similar terms as have been directed in the Order dated 09.02.2020 passed in the writ petition, W.P. [C] no. 4594/2020. Page No. 7/7 12. This order disposes of the writ petition. No cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant