Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010052842023 2025:GAU-AS:14019 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1407/2023 BHUMITRA BARUA AND 5 ORS W/O- LATE NARAYAN BARUA, R/O- WARD NO. 8, SALALPARA, P.S. AND P.O.- MANGALDAI, DISTRICT- DARRANG, ASSAM. 2: TAPAN CHANDRA BARUA S/O- LATE NARAYAN BARUA R/O- WARD NO. 8 SALALPARA P.S. AND P.O.- MANGALDAI DISTRICT- DARRANG ASSAM. 3: JAYANTA CHANDRA BARUA S/O- LATE NARAYAN BARUA R/O- WARD NO. 8 SALALPARA P.S. AND P.O.- MANGALDAI DISTRICT- DARRANG ASSAM. 4: CHINMAY BARUA S/O- LATE NARAYAN BARUA R/O- WARD NO. 8 SALALPARA Page No.# 2/7 P.S. AND P.O.- MANGALDAI DISTRICT- DARRANG ASSAM. 5: PRANJAL BARUA S/O- LATE NARAYAN BARUA R/O- WARD NO. 8 SALALPARA P.S. AND P.O.- MANGALDAI DISTRICT- DARRANG ASSAM. 6: PRIYA BARUA D/O- LATE NARAYAN BARUA R/O- WARD NO. 8 SALALPARA P.S. AND P.O.- MANGALDAI DISTRICT- DARRANG ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS THROUGH THE SECRETARY, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT, GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006. 2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DARRANG MANGALDAI ASSAM. 3:THE DISTRICT LAND ADVISIORY COMMITTEE DARRANG MANGALDAI REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DARRANG MANGALDAI ASSAM. Page No.# 3/7 4:THE MANGALDAI REVENUE CIRCLE OFFICER MANGALDAI TOWN DARRANG ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P UPADHYAY, MR A UPADHYAY Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE, GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER Date : 22-10-2025 Heard Mr. P. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 and Ms. N. Bordoloi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this matter has been taken up for disposal at the admission stage. 3. The petitioner no. 1 is the wife and the petitioner nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are the sons and the petitioner no. 6 is the daughter of late Narayan Chandra Barua who had initially purchased the plot of land measuring 1 Katha 15 Lechas covered by Dag No. 266 under Annual Patta No. 38 of village Bhaberghat under Rangamati Mouza from Debendra Nath Phukan by way of registered sale deed bearing registration no. 4197 dated 21.10.1964 of the Sub-Registry Office, Tezpur. The said land was covered by annual patta No. 38 of village Bhaberghat under Ramgamati Mouza. During the settlement period in 1986, the annual patta was cancelled Page No.# 4/7 without any notice to late Narayan Barua and the land was made sarkari and Dag no. was changed from 266 to 178. 4. The petitioners were served with a notice dated 21.09.2020 issued by the Circle Officer, Mangaldai Revenue Circle requiring the occupants to vacate the said plot of land. The petitioners who were settled on the said plot of land, on receipt of the said eviction notice approached the Circle Officer, Mangaldai Revenue Circle, to bring to his notice the continuous stay of the petitioners on the said plot of land, and requesting him to not allocate the plot of land to any 3rd party but consider the case of the petitioners for allotment/settlement of the said plot of land. When the representation of the petitioner went unanswered and survey was conducted by the District Revenue authorities, the petitioners have approached this Court. 5. Notice was issued in this case on 15.03.2023 and the respondents have filed their affidavit-in-opposition on 30.08.2024. In the said affidavit- in-opposition, the District Commissioner, Darang has stated that although the piece of land which was then covered by Dag No. 266 as annual patta land, now, the land has been converted to Dag no. 178 and is recorded as government land. The affidavit further reveals that the plot of land covered by Dag No. 178 was successfully identified by the revenue authority in the presence of all. The deponent in the affidavit has made an observation that the government is within its right with regard to disposal of the said government land. It has been asserted that no allotment/settlement on the said plot of land in the name of any individual or institution has been made till now and if any settlement is to be made Page No.# 5/7 in the said plot of land, it shall be made in accordance with law. 6. Mr. P. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that since the government now claims the said plot of land to be government land, the petitioners would be at the risk of eviction even without consideration of their prayer for being allotted the said plot of land or settlement of the said plot of land in their favour. Although it is an admitted fact that the land in issue is a government land, he has submitted that the petitioners have been residing in the plot of land since 21.10.1964, when their husband/father had purchased the said plot of land through a registered sale deed. He, therefore, prays that appropriate direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to settle the land in favour of the petitioners, lawfully and in legal terms. 7. On the other hand, Mr. N. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that it is prerogative of the government to decide on the issue of settlement of land in accordance with the prevalent law. He has submitted that since as of now there is no process initiated for allotment or settlement of the said plot of land, the apprehension of the petitioners regarding such a process is misconceived. He submits that the process of eviction would be undertaken, if required, only after following the due process of law. 8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 9. The respondent authorities have not denied that the petitioners have been residing in the said plot of land and at paragraph 3 of the affidavit- in-opposition, the registration of the sale no. 4197 dated 21.10.1964 has Page No.# 6/7 been confirmed from the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Mangaldai. 10.This Court notices that there has been no assertion by the respondent authorities that any notice has been issued upon the patta holder and the possessor of the land prior although assertion has been made that no such cancellation of annual patta can be made without prior notice. It is also not disputed by the writ petitioners that presently the land has been registered as government land. The mode and manner of cancellation of the annual patta and converting into government land is an issue which this Court would not go into. However, this Court will also not overlook the predicament faced by the petitioners at present. 11.In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of by rejecting the prayer of the writ petitioners for directing the respondent authorities to issue settlement order in favour of the petitioners by invoking such powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file appropriate application and approach the concerned authorities for allotment and settlement of the land in issue, and the respondent authorities upon receipt such representation or request are expected to take cognizance of the same with due diligence and in accordance with law. 12. Since Mr. Goswami, learned counsel has made a submission that no process to evict the petitioners is contemplated yet, this Court does not pass any order in that regard, saving except that no such process shall be initiated without following the due process of law. 13.Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the opportunity to the Page No.# 7/7 petitioners and direction to the respondents, as noted herein above. 14. Writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant