Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010051642025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/106/2025 DHANADA SARMAH W/O. LT. 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 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE (SETTLEMENT) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006. 2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL BODAFA NWGWR KOKRAJHAR BTAD ASSAM. 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER UDALGURI DIST. UDALGURI BTAD ASSAM. 4:THE LAND ADVISORY BOARD BHERGAON SUB-DIVISION REP. BY ITS CHARIMAN/SECRETARY BHERGAON DIST. UDALGURI BTAD ASSAM. 5:THE CIRCLE OFFICER Page No.# 2/8 HARISINGA REVENUE CIRCLE TANGLA P/O.TANGLA DIST. UDALGURI BTAD ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K ROY, MR. SAIDUL ALOM,K RAHMAN Advocate for the Respondent : SC, BTC, SC, REVENUE,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral) Date : 02.04.2025 (N. Unni Krishnan Nair. J) Heard Mr. S. K. Roy, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. N. Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department appearing for the respondent no. 1 and Mr. B. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, BTC appearing for the respondent nos. 2 & 4 and Mr. N. Das, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 3 & 5. 2. The challenge made in the present intra-court appeal is to a Judgment and Order dated 07.02.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 7049/2024, dismissing the same. 3. The husband of the appellant, herein, late Diju Kumar Sarmah had during his lifetime, submitted an application before the Circle Officer, Harisinga Revenue Circle, Tangla, in the prescribed format praying for allotment of a land measuring 1 Katha 9 Lessas, covered by Dag No. 1563 falling under Harisinga Revenue Circle, Tangla. The said application was processed by the Circle Officer, Harisinga Revenue Circle and on Page No.# 3/8 processing of the same, a proposal came to be prepared, which was then forwarded vide communication dated 28.12.2010, to the Member Secretary, Land Advisory Board cum Circle Officer, Karaibari Revenue Circle for consideration. 4. The application submitted by the husband of the appellant herein, having not been taken to its logical conclusion; her husband had approached the writ Court by way of filing WP(C) No. 5618/2022. During the pendency of the said proceeding, the husband of the appellant herein, having passed away, the appellant herein, being his legal heir substituted herself in the proceeding of WP(C) No. 5618/2022. 5. The learned Single Judge, vide order dated 07.02.2025, noticing the submission of the learned Standing Counsel, BTC, that the proposal prepared with regard to allotment/settlement of land in terms of the application submitted by the husband of the applicant was under active consideration of the Land Revenue Department of the BTC and a decision therein, was to be taken shortly, proceeded to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondent authorities to take the process to its logical conclusion within the time frame prescribed therein. 6. 6. It is to be noted that before passing of the order dated 07.02.2024, by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 5618/2022, the Secretary, BTC, vide communication dated 17.01.2024 had conveyed the approval of the BTC to the proposal of settlement of land in favour of the husband of the appellant, herein. The area of land so settled was 0B-1K-9L covered by Dag No. 1563. The Circle Officer, Harisinga Revenue Circle, was required to correct the land record after realization of premium due. The Circle Officer, thereafter, estimated the premium required to be paid at Rs. 17,40,000/-. Being aggrieved with the rate at which the premium has been so determined by the respondent authorities in respect of the land allotted to the husband of the appellant herein, the appellant herein, had approached the writ court by way of instituting WP(C) No 7049/2024. 7. The learned Single Judge, upon hearing the learned counsels appearing for the Page No.# 4/8 parties and also considering the materials coming on record, was pleased vide Judgment and Order dated 07.02.2025, to dismiss the said writ petition, dismissing the claim made therein by the appellant herein. The operative portion of the Judgment and Order dated 07.02.2025, being relevant, is extracted herein below: - “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 : - 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 Page No.# 5/8 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.” 8. Assailing the Judgment and Order dated 07.02.2025, Mr. S. K. Roy, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the application as submitted by the husband of the appellant herein, being so recommended by the Circle Officer concerned after due enquiry and the entitlement of the husband of the appellant for such allotment being determined, the premium required to be paid for allotment/settlement of the land, ought to be so determined at the rate as prevailing at the relevant point of time when the proposal with regard to the settlement/allotment of land was forwarded by the Circle Officer, Harisinga Revenue Circle to the Member Secretary, Land Advisory Board. Mr. Mr. Roy has further submitted that the delay occasioning in the matter in taking the proposal involved in the matter to its logical conclusion and for issuance of the order of allotment in favour of the husband of the appellant herein, the appellant should not be made to suffer and the premiums which is now required to be paid by the appellant, is to be so determined by construing the value of the land as existing when the proposal in this connection Page No.# 6/8 was first submitted by the Circle Officer, Harisinga Revenue Circle, in the year 2010. 9. Mr. B. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, BTC has submitted that the proposal as submitted by the Circle Officer, Harisinga Revenue Circle with regard to the allotment/settlement of the land in favour of the husband of the appellant herein, was approved in the year 2022; and the premiums so fixed for such allotment was so fixed as per the zonal valuation prevailing at that relevant point of time i.e., during the year 2022. Mr. Choudhury has submitted that considering the subject-plot of land and its location, the valuation has been calculated as Rs. 17,40,000/- as the subject-plot falls within the category of Residential Site-II and within 100 meters from the PWD Road. 10. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel has further submitted that as per the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the premium is to be calculated as per the rate prevailing during the date of application for allotment/settlement of Government land would not mandate an acceptance, inasmuch as, the right in favour of the appellant and/or her predecessor for allotment of the land had occasioned only when the approval for such allotment was accorded by the competent authority. 11. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 12. The grievance raised by the appellant herein, pertains to the rate at which the premium for the land allotted to the husband of the appellant herein, was so fixed in pursuance to the communication dated 17.01.2024; approving allotment of 0B-1K-9L covered by Dag No. 1563, Tangla, in favor of the husband of the appellant herein. 13. The learned Single Judge, vide the Judgment and Order dated 07.02.2025, on consideration of the issue, had concluded that mere pendency of an application for allotment/settlement of land cannot create any vested right in an applicant. Right of an applicant in this connection was held to have accrued only when the approval is accorded to such proposal for settlement/allotment of land, by the competent Page No.# 7/8 authority. The learned Single Judge has further held that until and unless an application complete in all respect is approved, it remains an application only and no right can be claimed on the basis of such an application. The learned Single Judge, basing on the said conclusion, proceeded to hold that the premium required to be deposited by the appellant, would be required to be so determined, basing on the zonal valuation prevailing at the time of according the approval to the proposal for the allotment/settlement of land to the appellant herein. The learned Single Judge also held that merely because at the time of processing of the application, a lesser zonal valuation rate was prevailing, the same cannot held to be the rate at which, the applicant can claim to pay premium at a later point of time when the approval has been so accorded. 14. On a close perusal of the conclusions reached by the learned Single Judge, vide the Judgment and Order dated 07.02.2024, we are of the considered view that the same has been so made by reckoning all the relevant factors involved and no perversity therein is noticeable. The view as taken by the learned Single Judge being a plausible view in the matter, this Court, in an intra-court appeal would not proceed to interfere with such view taken in the matter. 15. In this connection, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Airport Authority of India Vs Pradip Kumar Banerjee, reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 232, wherein, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in an intra-court appeal, the finding of fact of the learned Single Judge, unless such finding is concluded by the appellate Bench to be perverse, would not be called to be disturbed. It has been further held that merely because another view or a better view is possible; there should be no interference with or disturbance of the order passed by the learned Single Judge unless both sides agree for a fairer approach on relief. 16. Applying the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, referred to above, to the Page No.# 8/8 facts of the present case, we having not found any perversity with regard to the conclusions reached by the learned Single Judge in the impugned Judgment and the view taken by the learned Single Judge being a plausible view; we are not persuaded by the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant, to take a different view in the matter. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the impugned Judgment and Order, dated 07.02.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 7049/2024, would not warrant any interference. 17. In view of the above discussions; we do not find any merit in this writ appeal and consequently, the same stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant