The Gauhati High Court dismissed this review petition, reaffirming the previous order directing the Deputy Commissioner to resolve land possession disputes between petitioners and petitioners (opposite parties) via Due Process of Law without being influenced by earlier observations regarding absolute ownership.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010229152018
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Review.Pet./166/2018
SRI RAM CHANDRA DUTTA AND 13 ORS
S/O DINESH CHANDRA DUTTA
R/O KALIBARI ROAD, WARD NO 5 PO AND PS HOJAI, DIST HOJAI, ASSAM , 782435
2: SRI PRANKRISHNA DUTTA S/O DINESH CHANDRA DUTTA R/O KALIBARI ROAD WARD NO 5 PO AND PS HOJAI DIST HOJAI ASSAM 782435
3: SRI GOVINDA DUTTA S/O DINESH CHANDRA DUTTA R/O KALIBARI ROAD WARD NO 5 PO AND PS HOJAI DIST HOJAI ASSAM 782435
4: SRI BOLAI DAS S/O DEBENDRA DAS R/O KALIBARI ROAD WARD NO 5 PO AND PS HOJAI DIST HOJAI ASSAM 782435
5: SRI ANIL DAS S/O DEBENDRA DAS R/O KALIBARI ROAD WARD NO 5 PO AND PS HOJAI DIST HOJAI
Page No.# 2/7
ASSAM 782435
6: SMTI. SIPRA MOJUMDER W/O LATE RATAN MAJUMDER R/O KALIBARI ROAD WARD NO 5 PO AND PS HOJAI DIST HOJAI ASSAM 782435
7: SRI TINKU MAJUMDER S/O LATE RATAN MAJUMDER R/O KALIBARI ROAD WARD NO 5 PO AND PS HOJAI DIST HOJAI ASSAM 782435
8: DIPIKA MAJUMDER D/O LATE RATAN MAJUMDER R/O KALIBARI ROAD WARD NO 5 PO AND PS HOJAI DIST HOJAI ASSAM 782435
9: SMTI. LIPI MAJUMDER WDR/O KALIBARI ROAD WARD NO 5 PO AND PS HOJAI DIST HOJAI ASSAM 782435 10: SRI BIJAN PAUL S/O KRISHNA PAUL RESIDENT OF GOLAGHATIA BASTI MOUZA HOJAI DIST NAGAON ASSAM 782435
11: SRI SUJAN PAUL S/O KRISHNA PAUL RESIDENT OF GOLAGHATIA BASTI MOUZA HOJAI DIST NAGAON ASSAM
Page No.# 3/7
782435
12: RAJESH MAJUMDER S/O LATE NIRMAL MAJUMDER RESIDENT OF GOLAGHATIA BASTI MOUZA HOJAI DIST NAGAON ASSAM 782435 13: SRI NIKHIL DAS S/O HARI MOHAN DAS RESIDENT OF GOLAGHATIA BASTI MOUZA HOJAI DIST NAGAON ASSAM 782435
14: GAUR SUTRADHAR S/O AMARCHAND SUTRADHAR RESIDENT OF GOLAGHATIA BASTI MOUZA HOJAI DIST NAGAON ASSAM 78243
VERSUS
SMTI JYOTSHNA DAS AND 7 ORS W/O LATE SATYA RANJAN DAS, R/O GOLAGHATIA BASTI MOUZA HOJAI, DIST NAGAON, ASSAM, 782435
2:SRI BIJIT DAS S/O LATE SATYA RANJAN DAS
R/O GOLAGHATIA BASTI MOUZA HOJAI DIST NAGAON ASSAM 782435
3:SRI RAJIB DAS S/O LATE SATYA RANJAN DAS
R/O GOLAGHATIA BASTI MOUZA HOJAI DIST NAGAON ASSAM 782435
Page No.# 4/7
4:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM LAND AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GHY-6 ASSAM
5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HOJAI SANKARDEV NAGAR ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K PURKAYASTHA
Advocate for the Respondent :
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
ORDER
Date : 29-04-2022
Heard Mr. A.K. Purkayastha, learned counsel assisted by Mr. R.C. Paul, learned
counsel for the review petitioners. I have also heard Mr. D.C.K. Hazarika, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties/ writ petitioners. Mr. J. Handique, learned standing counsel, Revenue Department has appeared on behalf of the official respondents.
This review petition has been filed with a prayer to review/ recall the order dated 16-05-2018 passed in W.P.(C) No. 34/2014 whereby, this Court, had directed the Deputy Commissioner, Hojai to look into the grievance of the petitioners and pass appropriate order. The writ petitioners had claimed to be the rightful owners of the land which was earlier attached due to non-payment of land revenue by their predecessor-in-interest. It
Page No.# 5/7
appears that after attachment, the possession of the land was also taken over from the
writ petitioners and handed over to the review petitioners. In the writ petition, the review
petitioners were, however, not impleaded as parties. After taking note of the submission of the petitioners’ counsel, this Court had disposed of the writ petition by the order dated
16-05-2018 by making the following observations and directions:
“8. In the case is hand, it is apparent from the materials available on record that the land of the petitioners was attached on the ground of non-payment of arrear revenue and accordingly the possession of the land was taken over. However, upon release of the land from attachment the possession of the land was not restored to the pattadars i.e. the writ petitioners. As noted above, the Regulation of 1886 casts a duty upon the Deputy Commissioner to restore the possession of the land to the proprietor/ settlement holder once the estate is released from attachment. Therefore, performance of such statutory obligation affecting the rights of the pattadar cannot be avoided merely on the plea of apprehension of breach of peace and public order.
After the order dated 16-05-2018 was passed the review petitioners have
approached this Court by filing the instant petition inter alia contending that they are the rightful owners, in possession of the land and the writ petitioners/ opposite parties do not have any semblance of right, title and interest over the plot of land in question. The review petitioners have also contended that earlier, Title Suit No. 26/2012 was instituted by Smti. Jyostna Das, i.e. the writ petitioner No. 1, in the court of learned Munisff, Hojai
at Sankardev Nagar but the same was withdrawn without reserving her right to seek
Page No.# 6/7
further relief. As such, submits Mr. Purkayastha, the writ petitioners have forfeited their claim, if any, over the disputed land. It is also the submission of Mr. Purkayastha that the observations made in the order dated 16-05-2018 tilts the balance in favour of writ petitioners and therefore, there is strong possibility that being influenced by such observations, the Deputy Commissioner may rule in favour of the writ petitioners while disposing of the representation.
The aforesaid submission has, however, been vehemently opposed by Mr. D.C.K. Hazarika, learned counsel for the opposite parties who has also produced a copy of the ejahar dated 31-03-2022 lodged by Smti. Jyostna Das before the Officer-in-Charge, Hojai Police Station complaining that the Title Suit No. 26/2012 was falsely instituted in her name by means of impersonation.
Be that as it may, the core question that arises in this proceeding is as to who should be in possession of the disputed land and the said question, in the absence of any decree coming from the civil court, can only be decided by following the due process law laid down in the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. Since this Court, by order dated 16-05-2018, had merely directed the Deputy Commissioner, Hojai at Sankardev Nagar to consider the representation, if any, filed by the petitioners and pass appropriate order therein, without deciding the question of right of the writ petitioners to occupy the land, I am of the considered opinion that no interference with the said order is called for in this review petition. As such, the direction contained in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the order dated 16-05-2018 is hereby reaffirmed. However, after taking note of the apprehension of the learned counsel for both sides, it is hereby clarified that the learned Deputy
Page No.# 7/7
Commissioner, Hojai at Sankardev Nagar shall dispose of the claim of the rival parties strictly in accordance with law and after giving them adequate opportunity to place documentary proof in support of their claim and also after giving them opportunity of being heard in the matter before passing any final order and without being influenced by any prima facie observation of this Court as regards the claim of right of the rival parties, to occupy the disputed land.
In view of the disposal of the review petition, the parties are directed to submit a copy of this order along with their representations, claim and counter claim, if any, before the learned Deputy Commissioner, Hojai at Sankardev Nagar within 30 days from today. If such claim/ representation is filed within the time period mentioned above, the matter may be considered and decided in accordance with law.
Review petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE
GS
Comparing Assistant
Sri Ram Chandra Dutta And 13 Ors
Smti Jyotshna Das And 7 Ors
Suman Shyam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
