Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 10241 (GAU)

Akabbar Ali S/o Late Rezzak Ali v. State of Assam

2026-03-11

Sanjay Kumar Medhi

body2026
JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J. 1. Both these two writ petitions being connected, are taken up for an analogous hearing and are disposed of by this common judgment and order. The claim in these 2 writ petitions is with regard to settlement of land. 2. So far as WP(C)/3550/2020 is concerned, the relief prayed for is extracted hereinbelow: “In the premises aforesaid it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this petition call for the records and issue Rule, calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why; (A) a writ of Mandamus should not be issued directing to take necessary step for allotment/settlement in favour of the petitioners on the land covered by Dag No.537/454 in Ghugubari Grazing Reserve under Barnagar Revenue Circle in Barpeta district; (B) a writ of Mandamus should not be issued directing the Respondent No.3 to do needful in compliance of the direction of the Respondent No.1 and 2 vide letter dated 6-5-2015 and 26-5-2015; (C) any such other or further order should not be issued as may be deemed fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. During pendency of the writ petition the petitioner may be allowed to continue their possession on the land covered by Dag No. 537/454 in Ghugubari Grazing Reserve under Barnagar Revenue Circle in Barpeta district.” 3. 59 nos. of petitioners have joined together in this petition, with a claim for settlement of land. It is projected that the petitioners are erosion affected and in the year 1967, they were settled in a grazing reserve. Thereafter steps were taken for settlement, which was, however, not finalized. Accordingly, on 08.01.2014, an application was submitted for finalizing such settlement and such application was forwarded by the Department to the Deputy Commissioner, Barpetavide communication dated 06.05.2015. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta accordingly had directed the Circle Officer, Barnagar Revenue Circlevide communication dated 26.06.2015, to take steps in accordance with law. However, the matter was not taken forward and therefore, the instant petition has been filed. 4. On the other hand, so far as WP(C)/7370/2023 is concerned, 32 nos. of petitioners have joined together in this petition. It is contended that in April 1975, allotment of land was made in the said area to the petitioners to form an Agricultural Farming Corporation (sic). 4. On the other hand, so far as WP(C)/7370/2023 is concerned, 32 nos. of petitioners have joined together in this petition. It is contended that in April 1975, allotment of land was made in the said area to the petitioners to form an Agricultural Farming Corporation (sic). Prior to that, the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup had issued a communication to the Additional Deputy Commissioner dated 11.02.1971 to make the settlement. It has been clarified at that relevant time, the present district of Barpeta was part of the Kamrup. The petitioners have also relied upon an order dated 03.11.1986 passed by the Executive Magistrate in a proceeding under Section 145 of the CrPC, which was instituted by one of the petitioners against another, who is a petitioner in the other writ petition. The same was with regard to land measuring 106 Bighas. By the aforesaid order, the learned Executive Magistrate had declared possession in favour of the petitioner. The opposite party had filed a revision petition, which was, however, dismissed with an observation that the land was de-reserved. 5. The petitioners have also relied upon a petition dated 22.08.1984, along with which a list of persons who were allotted land, was enclosed. The petitioners had also applied for grant of Patta and vide communication dated 09.12.2014, the Additional Deputy Commissioner had directed the Circle Officer to de-reserve the land and to submit field verification. Reliance has also been placed on a letter dated 25.02.2017, issued by the Mouzadar, directing that the petitioners in both the writ petitionsbe given land measuring 2 Bigha 3 Katha 3 Lecha seach. It is also contended that the petitioners have been paying the revenue. It is informed that the petitioners had earlier filed WP(C)/849/2021, which was, however, disposed of on withdrawal with liberty, vide order dated 29.11.2023. As the land has not been settled, the instant petition has been filed. 6. I have heard Shri MK Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri R. Gohain, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C)/3550/2020 and Shri M. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C)/7370/2023. I have also heard Shri H. Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam and Ms. G. Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department. 7. 6. I have heard Shri MK Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri R. Gohain, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C)/3550/2020 and Shri M. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C)/7370/2023. I have also heard Shri H. Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam and Ms. G. Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department. 7. Shri MK Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in WP(C)/3550/2020 has submitted that the materials on record would show that the petitioners were given settlement in the year 1967 in grazing land which, however, was directed to be de-reserved. He has also submitted that a process was on for the dereservation, which did not culminate in any final decision, for which this Court had to be approached. The learned Senior Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 2 dated 16.02.2024 in which it has been stated that there are no records of settlement and further that settlement cannot be made without de- reservation. He has submitted that when the process of de-reservation was already on, the same be directed to be finalized and the land be settled with the petitioners. 8. Shri Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C)/7370/2023 has highlighted that in accordance with the communication dated 11.02.1971 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup to the Additional Deputy Commissioner to settle the land in favour of the petitioners, such allotment was made in the year 1975 to form an Agricultural Farming Corporation (sic). He has also submitted that in the order dated 03.11.1986, passed by the learned Executive Magistrate in the proceeding under Section 145 of the CrPC, the rights of the petitioners have been recognized. He has also submitted that in the revision filed by the opposite party, while the same was dismissed, an observation was made that the land was dereserved. He has also highlighted the aspect that in the communication dated 09.12.2014 issued by the ADC to the Circle Officer, it was mentioned that the land was de-reserved. 9. Reliance has also been made on the communication issued by the Mouzadar, wherein a proposal was made for settlement of land to the petitioners in both the cases @ 2 Bigha 3 Katha 3 Lecha each. 9. Reliance has also been made on the communication issued by the Mouzadar, wherein a proposal was made for settlement of land to the petitioners in both the cases @ 2 Bigha 3 Katha 3 Lecha each. He has also highlighted that while the petitioners in his case have also made the private parties as respondents, in the other case i.e., WP(C)/3550/2020, his clients have not been made parties. He has submitted that for this very reason, the earlier writ petition instituted by his clients, i.e., WP(C)/849/2021 was withdrawn with liberty. It is submitted that the process of dereservation should be brought to a logical conclusion and the Mouzadars proposal is to be accepted. 10. Per contra, Shri H. Sharma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam has submitted that the land in question is admittedly grazing land, which cannot be settled. He has submitted that the communications relied upon by the petitioners would not show that there was actually any de- reservation done of the plot of land in question. He has submitted that affidavit has been filed in both the writ petitions wherein the aspect that the land has not been de-reserved, has been categorically stated. By drawing the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 2 in WP(C)/3550/2020 on 16.02.2024, it is submitted that there is no record of any settlement in this regard. Reference has been made to the averments made in paragraphs-4 and6 of the said affidavit, which read as follows: “4. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph no.3 of the instant writ petition, the deponent begs to state that there is no record regarding settlement/allotment of land in Ghugubari VGR land under Rupshi Mouza of Barnagar Revenue Circle to the river eroded 59 families of village Kamarpara. However, a letter was received from the then DC Kamrup to ADC, Barpeta where it was directed concern SDC to settle the land. 6. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph no.5 of the instant writ petition, the deponent begs to state that as per report of Circle Officer, Barnagar Revenue Circle the said land cannot be allotted without de-reservation as the land is VGR.” 11. So far as WP(C)/7370/2023 is concerned, the learned State Counsel has submitted that in this case also, an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondent no. So far as WP(C)/7370/2023 is concerned, the learned State Counsel has submitted that in this case also, an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondent no. 3 on 05.09.2024 in which it has been categorically stated that there is a bar of settlement in respect of VGR land. In this connection, the pleadings made in paragraph 6 are pressed into service which reads as follows: “6. … It may further be mentioned here that, no formalities and procedure for converting/de-reservation of the VGR land & subsequent reservation of other govt. land as per Assam Land Revenue Regulation, 1886 in respect of Ghugubari Grazing Reserve has been done.” 12. The learned State Counsel has submitted that there was no process for dereservation and this aspect and pleadings have not been controverted by the petitioners by filing any rejoinder-affidavit. 13. Ms. G. Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department has endorsed the submission made by the learned State Counsel and has highlighted that the present issue in question has been clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. , (2011) 11 SCC 396 and accordingly the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. 14. The rival contentions advanced by learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully perused. 15. While the petitioners in WP(C)/3550/2020 have prayed for settlement of the land, which is stated to be under their possession, the petitioners in the other case, WP(C)/7370/2023,who also have a similar prayer, has claimed better title over the petitioners in WP(C)/3550/2020. Such claim has been made on the basis of the order dated 03.11.1986 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate in the Section 145 CrPC proceeding and also the order passed by the Revisional Court upholding the said order. Reliance has also been made on certain observations that the land was de-reserved. 16. This Court has, however, noted that the aspect that the land has been de- reserved is disputed in the affidavit-in-opposition filed in both the cases and such statements have not been controverted by the petitioners by filing any rejoinder. In fact, in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 2 in WP(C)/3550/2020,therea clear statement that there are no records of any settlement being made in the reserve land. In fact, in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 2 in WP(C)/3550/2020,therea clear statement that there are no records of any settlement being made in the reserve land. As per as the submissions made by the petitioners in WP(C)/7370/2023 that land was allotted in the year 1975, it transpires from a reading that such land was allotted only to form an Agriculture Farming Corporation (sic). It is not the case of the petitioners that any Agriculture Farming Corporation was formed. What is more important is that admittedly, the area in question is grazing land and unless the appropriate authorities de-reserve the land, the question of settlement would not arise. Furthermore, the stringent directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Singh (supra) towards de-reserving VGR /PGR land are to be taken into consideration. The objective is to preserve such grazing land for community purpose and not for making settlement for individuals. 17. The claim that the petitioners in WP(C)/7370/2023 that they were paying revenue, has been examined and it is found that the payment is nothing but “touzi” which is a mere penalty for encroaching Government land. In WP(C)/7370/2023, the respondent no. 3 has filed the affidavit-in-opposition on 05.09.2024, wherein in paragraph 6, it has been clearly stated that there is a bar in respect of settlement of VGR land and there was no formalities for such de-reservation. As rightly pointed out by the learned State Counsel, the aforesaid submissions are not controverted. 18. From the facts and circumstances discussed and the materials placed before this Court, it is apparent that the land in question is reserved grazing land. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the aforesaid case of Jagpal Singh (supra) has made certain stringent observations and those observations are in the line of preserving grazing land for community purpose only. The said observations are as follows: “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. 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.” 19. In view of the categorical direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the prayers made in these writ petitions cannot be granted. Accordingly, both the writ petitions stand dismissed. The petitioners, however, would be at liberty to apply for settlement of land under the present Land Policy of 2019, subject to fulfillment of all the preconditions necessary for such consideration.