Dismissed

Noor Jamal Ahmed v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC8 Jun 2022WP(C)/3745/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner sought extension of market settlement due to inability to collect revenue from encrochments. The High Court held that Section 105 mandates a one-year settlement by tender only and rejected the claim for extension out of legal mandate.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's claim for extension of settlement period disallowed; dismissal does not bar future claim for compensation.

Noor Jamal Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors. — Property and Title | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010107292022

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/3745/2022

¶5

NOOR JAMAL AHMED

¶6

S/O. ABDUL HAMID, VILL. BHOJKHOWA CHAPORI, P.O. BHOJKHOWA CHAPORI, DIST. SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN-784027.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

¶9

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., PANJABARI, JURIPAR, GUWAHATI, PIN-781037.

¶10

2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

¶11

SONITPUR TEZPUR ASSAM PIN-784001.

¶12

3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

¶13

SONITPUR ZILLA PARISHAD TEZPUR PIN-784001.

¶14

4:THE PRESIDENT

¶15

GABHARU ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT DIPOTA SONITPUR TEZPUR ASSAM

¶16

Page No.# 2/4

¶17

PIN-784001.

¶18

5:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND SECY.

¶19

GABHARU ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT DIPOTA SONITPUR TEZPUR ASSAM PIN-784001

¶20

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K GUPTA

¶21

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶22

BEFORE

¶23

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY Order

¶24

08.06.2022

¶25

Heard Mr. HJ Tamuli, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1,3 and 5 and Mr. R Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

¶26

The petitioner was settled with Bhojkhowa Weekly Market and Bhojkhowa Daily Market for the Panchayati Raj financial year 2021-22 and till 30.06.2022. The grievance of the petitioner is that during the aforesaid period of settlement the total area of market was not handed over to the petitioner inasmuch as there were encroachments and he could not collect the required revenue and suffered losses for the fault of the authority. Accordingly, he preferred a representation before the respondent authority on 26.08.2021 for removal of said illegal encroachment but during the period of settlement such encroachment has not been removed. In the aforesaid backdrop, the petitioner claims that instead of settling the market through

¶27

Page No.# 3/4

¶28

tender process, the period of settlement should be extended so as to compensate his losses.

¶29

The Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 under Section 105 lays down the procedure of settlement of Hat etc. The Legislature while enacting the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 has not incorporated any power upon the panchayat authorities to extend such period of settlement beyond one year and settlement is mandated for one year only.

¶30

The Hon’ble Division Bench while dealing with the provision of Section 105 of the Act, 1994 in the case of M.D. Ainul Hussain vs the State of Assam and ors reported in 1997 (1) GLT 164 at paragraph 6 held as follows:

¶31

“(6) A careful reading of Section 105(1) of the Act clearly indicate that the Legislature has given a mandate to the concerned Anchalik Panchayat that as far as Hats are concerned it has to be settled only for a period of one financial year and by inviting tenders. It is therefore, clear that the power of the Anchalik panchayat is absolutely circumscribed by the provisions of Section 105 (1) and the settlement cannot be for a period of more than one year and the settlement has also to be only by inviting tenders. Thus, where a settlement has been made for one year already, as in the present two cases, the period of settlement cannot be extended for any period beyond the period of one year. Moreover, after the period of year has expired in respect of a settlement, the next settlement has to be only by inviting tenders from all intending parties and not by extending the settlement of the party in whose favour the settlement had been made for the earlier period.”

¶32

In view of the settled proposition of law as well as the mandate of Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, the petitioner is having no right for extension. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. However, dismissal of the present writ petition shall not debar the petitioner to seek compensation for any wrong action of the sitting authority before the appropriate court of law.

¶33

Page No.# 4/4

¶34

With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

Comparing Assistant

Noor Jamal Ahmed v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Noor Jamal Ahmed v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indrajit Rajkhowa and 18 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 8 Ors.

Gobinda Basumatary Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Dibyajyoti Pathori and Anr. Vs the Union of India and 8 Ors.

Arup Das (Sarania) Vs Monoj Kumar

Dibya Jyoti Das Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Prasen Konwar Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.