Disposed

Smti Biju Saikia v. the State of Assam and Ors.

Gauhati HC11 Sept 2024WP(C)/1975/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged cancellation of her patta and allotment of land to APDCL for a sub-station without proper hearing. The Court, finding no clear record of hearing, disposed of the writ petition directing the Deputy Commissioner to consider the petitioner's representation and pass a fresh reasoned order reviewing the allotment within three months.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smti Biju Saikia Vs the State of Assam and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Gauhati HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010192022013

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/1975/2012

¶5

SMTI BIJU SAIKIA W/O SRI BIPIN SAIKIA R/O NO.1 SENSOWA GAON P.O. CHINATOLI P.S. GOLAGHAT DIST- GOLAGHAT ASSAM

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GHY-6

¶8

2:DY. COMMISSIONER GOLAGHAT DIST- GOLAGHAT PIN-785621

¶9

3:ADDITIONAL DY. COMMISSIONER REVENUE GOLAGHAT DIST- GOLAGHAT PIN-785621

¶10

4:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶11

ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LTD. BIJULI BHAWAN GUWAHATI

¶12

5:THE ASSISTANT MANAGER

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

GOLAGHAT ELECTRICAL DIVISION ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LTD. GOLAGHAT DIST- GOLAGHAT PIN-785621

¶15

-----------Advocate for : MR.S K MEDHI Advocate for : MR.A NATH appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS

¶16

BEFORE

¶17

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 12/09/2024

¶20

Heard Ms. P. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Ms. G Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Assam, appearing for the respondent no. 1, Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, representing the respondent nos. 2 & 3 and Mr. D. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL.

¶21

The case of the petitioner, briefly stated, is to the effect that the Deputy Commissioner, Golaghat, had issued annual patta No. 50 of Golamputty Gaon covering a plot of land measuring 2 Katha 19 Lechas covered by Dag No. 111/466 and 113 of Golampatty Gaon, Moukhowa Mouza in the district of Golaghat. According to the petitioner, the said annual patta was subsequently converted into periodic patta No. 70 of Golampatty Gaon and since then the petitioner had been enjoying possession and ownership over the aforesaid plot of land. Subsequently, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Golaghat, vide order dated 09/01/2012 had cancelled the annual patta and allotted the said plot of land to APDCL for setting up of a 33/11 KV Sub-station of the Golaghat Electrical Division of Assam Power Distribution Corporation Ltd. (APDCL), without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the order dated 09/01/2012, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.

¶22

The stand of the Revenue authorities, as projected through Ms. G. Hazarika, learned Standing

¶23

Page No.# 3/4

¶24

Counsel, Revenue and DM Department and Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, is that the plot of land in question, was fraudulently converted into a periodic patta land in the name of the petitioner without following the due procedure of law. As such, no right was created in favour of the petitioner over the plot of land in question. Mr. Chutia has also submitted that notice was issued to the petitioner but it is not clear from the record as to whether he was heard in the matter or not.

¶25

Mr. D. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL, submits that pursuant to the allotment of the land in favour of the APDCL in the month of December, 2012, a Sub-station had been set up over the plot of land wherefrom, distribution of power is taking place at present. As such, there is no scope for the petitioner to get back the possession of the land.

¶26

Taking note of the arguments made by the petitioner’s counsel that the land was taken away without due compliance of principles of natural justice, this Court had called for the departmental records so as to verify the said assertion. After going through the records, it transpires that notice was issued to the petitioner but whether any opportunity of hearing was given to him or not, is not clear from the departmental records. Mr. Chutia has, however, submitted that the petitioner had submitted his reply in the matter.

¶27

Be that as it may, ordinarily an order of this nature passed by the Revenue Authorities would be appealable under Regulation 147 of the Assam Land and Revenue regulations, 1886. However, this Court is of the opinion that the Revenue Authorities must consider the objection raised by the petitioner and pass a formal order in the matter recording its opinion on the claim of the writ petitioner. The question of preferring an appeal will arise only when there is an order passed by the concerned authority addressing the controversy.

¶28

As such, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claims and counter claims of the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of by granting 4 (four) weeks time to the writ petitioner to

¶29

Page No.# 4/4

¶30

submit a representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Golaghat, ventilating his grievance in the matter.

¶31

In the representation, the petitioner will not only enclose all the relevant documents in support of his claim but shall also mention whether he seeks a personal hearing in the matter or not. Upon receipt of such representation submitted along with a certified copy of this order, the Deputy Commissioner, Golaghat i.e. the respondent no. 2 may give an opportunity of being heard to all the interested parties and thereafter, pass a fresh order in the matter, reviewing the allotment of the land to the APDCL.

¶32

The aforesaid exercise be carried out as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period 3(three) months from the date of receipt of representation, to be submitted by the writ petitioner, in terms of the order of this Court.

¶33

If the petitioner continues to remain aggrieved in the matter even thereafter, it will be open for him to avail appropriate legal remedy as may be permissible under the law.

¶34

The writ petition is, accordingly disposed of.

¶35

Records be returned back.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

sukhamay

¶38

Comparing Assistant

Smti Biju Saikia v. the State of Assam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smti Biju Saikia v. the State of Assam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Kumar Roy and 2 Ors. Vs Bivash Modi

Shishu Pal @ Shiv Pal Vs Rajiv Rai Bhatnagar and 3 Ors.

Smt. Anima Das Vs Sri Askar Ali

Firuja Begum @ Firuza Begum Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Putul Saikia @ Nipen Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Naresh Kumar Upadhyaya Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.