Bidur Chandra Ray Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/14

¶2

GAHC010159982024

¶3

2025:GAU-AS:6078

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/4177/2024

¶6

BIDUR CHANDRA RAY

¶7

S/O- CHATISH CHANDRA RAY, R/O- VILLAGE- KOIMARI PART VII, P.O. KOIMARI, P.S. GOLAK GANJ, DISTRICT- DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN- 783335

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06

¶10

2:THE DIRECTOR INLAND WATER TRANSPORT ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI- 781007 KAMRUP (M)

¶11

3:EXECUTIVE ENGINEER INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DIVISION ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI- 781007 KAMRUP (M)

¶12

4:RAJESH BHAKAT S/O- LATE TRINATH RAI BHAKAT R/O- VILLAGE- KAIMARI PART VI P.O. KAIMARI P.S. GOLAK GANJ DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783335

¶13

Page No.# 2/14

¶14

5:CIRCLE OFFICER AGOMONI REVENUE CIRCLE AGOMONI DISTRICT- DHUBRI ASSAM

¶15

Linked Case : WP(C)/4349/2024

¶16

BIDUR CHANDRA RAY S/O- CHATISH CHANDRA RAY R/O- VILLAGE KOIMARI PART-VII P.O.- KOIMARI P.S.- GOLAK GANJ DISTRICT- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783335.

¶17

VERSUS

¶18

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06.

¶19

2:THE DIRECTOR INLAND WATER TRANSPORT ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI- 781007 KAMRUP(M).

¶20

3:EXECUTIVE ENGINEER INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DIVISION ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI- 781007 KAMRUP(M).

¶21

4:RAJESH BHAKAT S/O- LATE TRINATH RAI BHAKAT R/O- VILLAGE KAIMARI PART-VI P.O.- KAIMARI P.S. GOLAK GANJ

¶22

Page No.# 3/14

¶23

DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783335.

¶24

5:CIRCLE OFFICER AGOMONI REVENUE CIRCLE AGOMONI DISTRICT- DHUBRI ASSAM. -----------Advocate for : MR. P MAHANTA Advocate for : SC TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.

¶25

BEFORE

¶26

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶27

For the petitioner : Mr. P. Mahanta, Mr. C. Sarma, Mr. V. Khakhalary. .... Advocates.

¶28

For the respondent no.4 : Mr. S. Kataki .... Advocate. For the respondent no.5 : Mr. M. Chetia .... Advocate. For the respondent : Ms. M. D. Borah .... SC, Transport. Transport Department. Date of hearing : 01.05.2025 Date of Judgment : 16.05.2025

¶29

Page No.# 4/14

¶30

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

¶31

1. Heard Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the writ petitions and Mr. S. Kataki, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. Also heard Mr. M. Chetia, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 and Ms. M. D. Borah, learned counsel for the Transport Department.

¶32

2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the cancellation of the Land Valuation Certificate No. AMC.4.2020/154 dated 22.02.2024 issued in favour of the petitioner and the Order No. ECF No.470518/236 dated 23.08.2024 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, informing the Director of IWT regarding settlement of the Gumaghat Ferry Service (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ferry Service’) with the respondent no.4 for the remaining period of 20242026.

¶33

3. The petitioner’s case in brief is that the petitioner participated in the NIT No. 67 dated 08.02.2024, for running the Gumaghat Ferry Service for the years 2024-2026. The petitioner’s bid of Rs. 16,42,500/- being the highest, he was allowed to run the ferry service every 15 days w.e.f. 01.04.2024, till regular settlement of the ferry service was to be made by the authority. The petitioner’s temporary settlement of the ferry service was to end on 30.06.2024. The petitioner thereafter came to learn of the office order No. 354 dated 21.06.2024, whereby the Ferry Service was to be run by Rajesh Bhakat (respondent No. 4) w.e.f. 01.07.2024 to 31.07.2024. The petitioner came to learn that the said decision had been made due to the petitioner’s bid not being proper, on the ground that he did not submit the Non-Encumbrance Certificate

¶34

Page No.# 5/14

¶35

(NEC), as required in the NIT, which is for securing the bid amount submitted by a tenderer.

¶36

4. The petitioner being aggrieved with the decision of the respondents to settle the Ferry Service with the respondent no.4 filed WP(C) 3400/2024. The petitioner’s case in WP(C) 3400/2024 was that the petitioner had submitted three Non-Encumbrance Certificates (NECs) along with supporting Land Valuation Certificates and that even if one NEC, which was not up-to-date, did not cover the bid amount of the petitioner as security deposit, the other two upto-date NECs would cover the bid amount of the petitioner. In this respect, it would be profitable to refer to Clause-7 of the terms and conditions of the NIT, which states as follows:-“The tenderer have to submit Certificate in support of periodic patta land in his own name within the District or the Subdivision of value not less than the bid/tender money from the Deputy Commissioner/Additional Deputy Commissioner/Sadar Sub divisional Officer of the District or Sub divisional Officer (Civil) of the Subdivision concerned and Circle Officer on behalf of Deputy Commissioner.”

¶37

5. During the proceedings of WP(C) 3400/2024, the Circle Officer, Agomoni Revenue Circle issued a Speaking Order dated 08.07.2024 cancelling the Land Valuation Certificate issued vide No. AMC/4/2020/154 dated 22.02.2024, in relation to the petitioner’s NEC bearing RTPS Reference No.RTPSNEC/2023/5808944, as there was a discrepancy between the land schedule mentioned in the petitioner’s application and the Lot Mondal’s report. Further, the land valuation stated in the certificate differed from the valuation in the Lot Mondal’s report. As such, the petitioner was asked to submit the original Land Valuation Certificate issued to him and to apply for a fresh Certificate. Pursuant

¶38

Page No.# 6/14

¶39

to the cancellation of the petitioner’s Land Valuation Certificate by the Speaking Order dated 08.07.2024, which was an essential document to be submitted by a tenderer, WP(C) 3400/2024 was closed vide order dated 24.07.2024, as there was nothing left to adjudicate in the said case. It was also stated in the order dated 24.07.2024 passed in WP(C) 3400/2024 that the petitioner was at liberty to challenge any regular selection of a tenderer, who was settled with the Ferry Service, pursuant to the NIT dated 08.02.2024.

¶40

6. The petitioner thereafter filed WP(C) 4177/2024 and WP(C) 4349/2024, for setting aside and quashing the comparative statement dated nil, which showed that the petitioner had not submitted up-to-date NEC. The petitioner also put to challenge the Tender Committee meeting dated 13.06.2024, wherein a recommendation had been made for settlement of the ferry service with the respondent No. 4. The petitioner also prayed for setting aside the Speaking Order dated 08.07.2024 issued by the Circle Officer and the order dated 23.08.2024, settling the ferry service with the respondent No. 4.

¶41

7. The petitioner’s counsel submits that subsequent to the above events, the Circle Officer, Agomoni Revenue Circle has issued a fresh Land Valuation Certificate dated 26.07.2024 to the petitioner and in view of the fact that the petitioner’s bid is higher than the bid of the respondent no.4, the settlement of the Ferry Service should have been made with the petitioner.

¶42

8. Ms. M.D. Borah, learned counsel for the Transport Department submits that though the petitioner had submitted 3 (three) NECs, i.e., (i) RTPSNE/2023/3219756, (ii) RTPS-NEC/2023/5808944 and (iii) No. 7/2022 dated 10.01.2022, the findings of the Tender Evaluation Committee showed that the 3

¶43

Page No.# 7/14

¶44

(three) NECs could not be considered to be valid due to the following reasons:-

¶45

(i) That with regard to NEC bearing RTPS Reference No. RTPSNE/2023/3219756 (for land covered by Patta No. 160, Dag No. 63), the petitioner had not submitted any corresponding land valuation certificate and jamabondi copy. As such the land covered by Patta No. 160, Dag No. 63 was not considered by the Tender Evaluation Committee.

¶46

(ii) That with regard to NEC bearing RTPS Reference No. RTPSNEC/2023/5808944 (for land covered by Patta no.413, Dag no.698), the corresponding Land Valuation Certificate issued vide No. AMC.4/2020/154 dated 22/02/2024 as submitted by the petitioner in his e-bid, revealed that the land was not in the bidder's name, but in the name of one Binodini Dashya.

¶47

(iii) That the NEC bearing reference No. 7/2022 dated 10/01/2022 (for land covered by Patta No. 478 & 176, Dag No. 808) was not an up-to-date NEC. As such it could be considered valid as per Clause 8 of the NIT.

¶48

9. The learned counsel for the Transport Department submits that the Land Valuation Certificate dated 22.02.2024 that had been submitted by the petitioner in relation to RTPS-NEC/2023/5808944 revealed that the same had been issued to Shri Binodini Dashya and not the petitioner in respect of plot of land measuring 8B-2K-12L covered by Dag No. 698 bearing Kheraj Myadi Patta No. 413 of village- Kaimari Pt-IV.

¶49

10. The counsel for the respondent No. 5 submits that land valuation certificate were given to Shri Bidur Ch. Ray, S/O- Satish Ch. Ray, in respect of plot of land measuring 3B-1K-5L covered by Dag No. 808 bearing Kheraj Myadi Patta No.

¶50

Page No.# 8/14

¶51

479 and land measuring 8B-2K-12L covered by Dag No. 698 bearing Kheraj Myadi Patta No. 413 of village-Kaimari Pt.-IV. An objection was received from Shri Bishnu Ram Ray, S/O- Amulya Kr. Ray, who was a co-pattadar of the above scheduled land. A hearing was conducted in the office of the Circle Officer, Agomani Rev. Circle, where both Shri Bidur Ch. Ray and Shri Bishnu Ram Ray were present. After hearing the parties and examination of the records, the Land Valuation Certificate issued to the petitioner, vide AMC. 4/2020/154 dt.22/02/2024 was cancelled, as the same was not in conformity with the Lot Mondal’s records.

¶52

11. In the cancelled Land Valuation Certificate it was mentioned that the land measuring 3B-1K-5L covered by dag no. 808 bearing Kheraj Myadi Patta No. 479 of vill.- Kaimari pt-IV under Agomani Rev. Circle was recorded in the name of Sachindra Nath Sarkar, S/o-Manindra Sarkar and 10 (Ten) others as pattadar. But, the records did not contain the name of Sachindra Nath Sarkar. As per Dharitree records, Binodini Dashya, D/o- Harekrishna Dashya was shown as the pattadar of the land and Bidur Ch. Ray (petitioner), S/O- Satish Ch. Ray was recorded as occupancy tenant. A fresh certificate was issued vide AMC.4/2020/584 dated 26/07/2024, where the name of Pattadar was mentioned as per record. On 22/10/2024, the record was modified and the name of Bidur Ch. Ray S/O- Satish Ch. Ray was recorded as pattardar on the basis of Mission Basundhara Application No. RTPS/SOT/2022/224529.

¶53

12. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 further submits that in the cancelled Land Valuation Certificate it is mentioned that the land measuring 8B2K-12L covered by Dag No. 698 bearing Kheraj Myadi Patta No. 413 of Vill.-

¶54

Page No.# 9/14

¶55

Kaimari Pt-IV under Agomani Revenue Circle is recorded in the name of Binodini Dashya D/O-Harekrishna Das, as pattadar. But, in the record i.e. in the Dharitree Chitha, the name Binodini Dashya is not recorded as pattadar. Moreover, in the cancelled certificate it is mentioned that Bidur Ch. Ray S/O- Satish Ch. Ray is recorded as a tenant. But, in the record there is no Rayat (Tenant) in the schedule land. A fresh certificate was thus issued vide AMC.4/2020/585 dated 26/07/2024 where the name of the petitioner was recorded as the Pattadar.

¶56

13. The learned counsels for the respondents submit that when the Land Valuation Certificate submitted by the petitioner along with his bid, pursuant to the NIT dated 08.02.2024, was not in the name of the petitioner, no benefit can be derived by the petitioner from the Land Valuation Certificate which was not in his name, as the same could not be considered to be used as security of the petitioner’s bid amount, i.e., in relation to the NEC submitted by the petitioner. The subsequent Land Valuation Certificate having been issued on 26.07.2024, i.e. after the last date of submission of tenders, i.e. 29.02.2024, the petitioner had no right to make a claim for settlement of the Ferry Service, on the basis of a Land Valuation Certificate made after the last date of submission of his bid/tender.

¶57

14. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶58

15. As can be seen from the submissions made by the counsels for the parties and the pleadings, the settlement of the Ferry Service was to be made pursuant to an NIT dated 08.02.2024, wherein the last date of submission of bids was 29.02.2024. The terms and conditions of the NIT required tenderers to submit

¶59

Page No.# 10/14

¶60

NEC to secure the bid amount. The same was a mandatory condition to be fulfilled by the tenderers. The petitioner had submitted 3 (three) NECs along with his bid documents, for settlement of the Ferry Service in terms of the NIT dated 08.02.2024. As has been reflected in the affidavit of the respondent No. 2 filed in WP(C) 4349/2024, the petitioner had not submitted any Land Valuation Certificate or jamabandi copy in respect of the NEC bearing RTPS Reference No.RTPS-NE/2023/3219756. The NEC bearing Reference No.7/2022 dated 10.01.2022 was not an up-to-date NEC and as such, it could not be considered in terms of Clause 8 of the terms and conditions of the NIT, which states that “the tenderer have to submit up to date Non Encumbrance certificate regarding the Land under periodic patta from the D.C./A.D.C/SDO Sadar/S.D.O(Civil) of Sub-Division or concerned Sub-Registrar. The tenderer have also to submit Land revenue clearance Certificate from the concerned Mouzadar.”

¶61

16. In respect of NEC bearing RTPS Reference No.RTPS-NEC/2023/5808944, the Land Valuation Certificate issued vide No.AMC.4/2020/154 dated 22.02.2024, which was submitted by the petitioner, showed that the same was not in the name of the petitioner. Though it is the petitioner’s case that the land on the basis of which Land Valuation Certificate dated 22.02.2024 had been issued to the petitioner was the petitioner’s land, the fact remains that the Land Valuation Certificate dated 22.02.2024 was issued in the name of Shri Binodini Dashya. As such, at the time of submitting his bid documents, the Land Valuation Certificate submitted by the petitioner in support of his NEC bearing RTPS-NEC/2023/5808944 was not in the petitioner’s name. As such, the said NEC could not be said to be in relation to the land of the petitioner, which would secure the bid of the petitioner, as required as per the terms of the NIT.

¶62

Page No.# 11/14

¶63

The Land Valuation Certificate was thus cancelled due to the same not being in consonance with the official records. Though it is the case of the petitioner that he should not be made to suffer due to the State respondents having issued a wrong Land Valuation Certificate in another persons name, as per the official records, this Court is of the view that there was a corresponding duty on the part of the petitioner to verify whether the Land Valuation Certificate dated 22.02.2024, that had been issued by the State respondents, was correct. If the petitioner was of the view that a wrong Land Valuation Certificate had been issued, he could have easily made an application to the authorities for correction of the same. However, the petitioner did not make any application to the respondent authorities for correction of any mistake in the Land Valuation Certificate dated 22.02.2024 submitted by him. Instead, the petitioner submitted the alleged incorrect Land Valuation Certificate along with his bid documents pursuant to the NIT.

¶64

17. The petitioner should have asked for correction of the land records with the respondent authorities, so that the ownership of the land was mutated in his name at the relevant point of time. The fact remains that the land and the Land Valuation Certificate pertaining to the NEC bearing RTPS-NEC/2023/5808944 in relation to land covered by Patta No. 413, Dag No. 698 was not in the name of the petitioner, but in the name of Shri Binodini Dashya. Thus, there was no infirmity with the issuance of a Land Valuation Certificate in the name of Binodini Dashya at the relevant point of time. For the sake of repetition it may be again stated here that the land valuation certificate in relation to the NEC bearing RTPS-NEC/2023/5808944, for land covered by Patta No. 413, Dag No. 698, was not in the name of the petitioner, at the time of submission of his

¶65

Page No.# 12/14

¶66

tender/bid. Similarly in the Land Valuation Certificate it was mentioned that the land measuring 3B-1K-5L covered by dag no. 808 bearing Kheraj Myadi Patta No. 479 of vill.- Kaimari pt-IV under Agomani Rev. Circle was recorded in the name of Sachindra Nath Sarkar, S/o-Manindra Sarkar and 10 (Ten) others as pattadar. When the land evaluation certificate submitted by the petitioner was not in his name, the same cannot be read to be certificate pertaining to the petitioner’s land. As such, the petitioner could not have secured his bid on the basis of the said land evaluation certificate and the NEC, in terms of Clause-7 & 8 of the terms and conditions of the NIT.

¶67

18. The petitioner’s land evaluation certificate dated 22.02.2024 had been cancelled vide the impugned Speaking Order dated 08.07.2024, which states as follows:-

¶68

“Whereas I tone) no of land valuation certiflente application has been by Shri. Bidur Ch Ray (1" Paty), SAD: Satish h Ray on 20/02/2024 pertaining to a plot of land measuring 115-16-51. concred by Day No. 808, bearing Kheraj Meadi Patta No. 479 and land measuring K11-2K-121 covered by ng No 698, bearing Kheraj Myadi Patta No. 413 of village Kalmuri P1-۱۷

¶69

Whereas, a land valuation certificate has been issued from this office vide letter no. AMC. 4/2020/154 d. 22/02/2024,

¶70

Whereas, an objection petition has been received by the undersigned from Sari. Bishuuram Ikas (2 Party com Co-Pattadar) S/O: 1.t. Amullya Kr Ray of village Kaimari P-IV praymy of cancellation of the land valuation certificate issued from this office

¶71

Page No.# 13/14

¶72

Whereas, after receiving the objection petition from the 2nd Party, the undersigned has issued a notice vide letter no. AMC 4/2020/490 dt. 03/07/2024 from this office and a hearing date was fixed on 05.07/2024 and notice was served to both the parties accordingly

¶73

Whereas, both the parties have appeared before the Circle Officer & Executive Magistrate Ayonnani Revenue Cirele in connection with notice issued vide no. AMC 4/2020/490 for the clarification of the facts.

¶74

Whereas, after proper verification of the documents submitted by both parties and the concerned Lat Mandal, it was found that there is a discrepancy between the land schedule mentioned in the application and the Lot Mandal's report. Furthermore, a thorough review of the documents revealed that the land valuation stated in the issued certificate differs from the valuation in the Lot Mandal's report

¶75

Hence, in view of the above evidence and documents presented before the Circle Officer and Executive Magistrate, Agomani Revenue Circle, it is found that a clerical error occurred during the typing of the certificate. Consequently, the certificate issued vide no. AMC 4/2020/154 dt. 22/02/2024 stands cancelled. The applicant has been asked to submit the original issued certificate immediately to the office of the Undersigned and also to submit a fresh application for the required certificate.”

¶76

19. There is nothing to show that there is anything wrong with cancellation of the land valuation certificate dated 22.02.2024 vide the impugned speaking order and as such, no case of interference has been made out by the petitioner. The cancellation of the incorrect Land Valuation Certificate dated 22.02.2024 and the subsequent issuance of a correct Land Valuation Certificate on 26.07.2024 does not, in my view, give any right to the petitioner to have his bid

¶77

Page No.# 14/14

¶78

documents to be considered for settlement of the Ferry Service, inasmuch as, the new Land Valuation Certificate dated 26.07.2024 had been issued after the last date of submission of tenders, i.e. 29.02.2024, pursuant to the NIT dated 08.02.2024.

¶79

20. In view of the fact that the petitioner’s Land Valuation Certificate which had had submitted along his tender documents was incorrect, this Court is of the view that no benefit can accrue to the petitioner on the basis of an incorrect Land Valuation Certificate submitted by him.

¶80

21. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any ground to allow the writ petitions. The same are accordingly dismissed.

¶81

JUDGE

¶82

Comparing Assistant

Bidur Chandra Ray v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bidur Chandra Ray v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Vardan Associates Private Limited Vs Numaligarh Refinery Limited and 7 Ors.

M/S Down Town Hospital Ltd. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Urrunaband Tea Estate Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Mainul Ali Vs the Guwahati Municipal Corporation and 3 Ors.

Bidur Chandra Ray Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Mainul Ali Vs the Guwahati Municipal Corporation and 4 Ors.