M/S Bhauram Jodhraj Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/10

¶2

GAHC010168092020

¶3

2025:GAU-AS:7677

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/5094/2020

¶6

M/S BHAURAM JODHRAJ

¶7

A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 101 PRIME APARTMENT, CHRISTIANBASTI, GS ROAD, GUWAHATI 781005, DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS PARTNER/REPRESENTATIVE/ATTORNEY HOLDER ,NAMELY SRI AJJAY KHEMKA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, SON OF SRI SHYAMAL KHEMKA, RESIDENT OF 101 PRIME APARTMENT, CHRISTIANBASTI, GS ROAD, GUWAHATI 781005, DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI

¶10

2:THE DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER GUWAHATI CIRCLE NARENGI MILITARY STATION OLD ARMY SCHOOL BUILDING SATGAON KAMRUP M ASSAM 781027

¶11

3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KAMRUP M PANBAZAR GUWAHATI 781101 DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM

¶12

4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER SONAPUR REVENUE CIRCLE DIST KAMRUP M ASSA

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S DEKA, MS. J BORO

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., MR. S K MEDHI,MS. K PHUKAN, GA, ASSAM (R3,4),MR. A K DUTTA (R-1,2),GA, ASSAM

¶15

Page No.# 2/10

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶17

JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral)

¶18

12-06-2025

¶19

1. Heard Mr. S. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. H. Sharma, learned State counsel for the respondents. Though the Union of India was represented earlier by Mr. S.K. Medhi, CGC, however, he submits that now brief has been taken from the office of CGC by the respondent No. 2.

¶20

2. Case of the petitioner

¶21

2.1 The petitioner firm is the owner of a Tea Estate, namely, Amchong Tea Estate, situated at Sonapur, Kamrup (M), Assam. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in the month of February 2020, the respondent No. 2, i.e., the Defence Estate Officer, Guwahati Circle, Narengi Military Station, illegally trespassed into a portion of aforesaid Tea Estate land (hereinafter referred to as subject land), measuring 10 Bighas 12 Lechas covered by Dag Nos. 648/649/650/665 of KP Patta No. 32, situated at Amchong revenue village under Panbari Mouza of Sonapur Revenue Circle in the district of Kamrup (m), without acquiring the same and started construction activities in it.

¶22

2.2 It is the further case of the petitioner that after noticing the same, when the employees of the petitioner firm asked the Defence authorities to stop such activities, the Defence authorities did not give any heed and accordingly, the petitioner firm by its letter dated 06.02.2020 (Annexure-5 to this petition), requested the respondent No. 2, either to vacate the subject land or if, requires for any public purpose, to acquire the subject land by following due procedure of law. However, by letter dated 27.07.2020 (Annexure-6 to this petition), the respondent No. 2 informed the petitioner firm that the subject

¶23

Page No.# 3/10

¶24

land is defence land and has been acquired for defence purpose.

¶25

2.3 In the aforesaid backdrop, the petitioner then approached the respondent No. 4, i.e., the Circle Officer, Sonapur Revenue Circle to provide updated status of the subject land. After causing due field enquiry as well as after perusal of the revenue map and the relevant records, the respondent No. 4 issued a Certificate on 05.09.2020, (Annexure-8 to this petition), certifying that the subject land is standing in the name of the petitioner, i.e., Bhauram Jodhraj, but presently, the same is under possession of Satgaon (Narengi) Army Camp, i.e., under the possession of the respondent No. 2 and in such a situation, the petitioner firm by its communication dated 17.09.2020 (Annexure9 to this petition), requested the respondent No.2, either to vacate the subject land or to acquire the same, by following due procedure of law.

¶26

2.4 As nothing had been done by the respondent No. 2, the petitioner firm approached the respondent No. 3, i.e., the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (m), to look into the matter, but too of no avail. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is filed.

¶27

2.5 It is the contention of Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner firm that, admittedly, the petitioner is the registered owner of the subject land, inasmuch as, such contention of the petitioner firm has duly been certified by the revenue authorities and thus, valuable right has been accrued to it and as such, the subject land cannot be possessed by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, without any sanction and authority of law and without following due process of law.

¶28

3. Case of the respondent No. 2

¶29

3.1 The respondent No. 2 is the Defence Estate Officer. The respondent No. 2 had filed an affidavit on 15.03.2021 and has taken a stand, more particularly, at paragraph 4, that as per the Military Land Register (hereinafter

¶30

Page No.# 4/10

¶31

referred to as MLR), specified at Volume-2, Page No. 57 and Volume-2, Page No. 59 of the MLR, an area of land, measuring 49.345 acres, situated at Village-Amchong Project-II, Mouza- Panbari, District-Kamrup, was acquired for CMA Narengi (defence purpose) by the Government of Assam Revenue (Settlement) Department vide letter No. RSD.3/62/52 dated 07.02.1962 and an area of land, measuring 145.619 acres, situated at Village-Amchong Project-II under Panbari Mouza in the district of Kamrup, was acquired vide Government of Assam Declaration No. RLA. 135/61/3 dated 24.03.1961 and accordingly, amounting to Rs. 3,97,997/- and Rs. 57,210/-, had respectively been paid as cost of land acquisition and transfer. According to such affidavit, as per the MLR and the acquisition Map/Map prepared under Rule 10 of the ACR, 1944, Dag Nos. 648/649/650/665 at Village- Amchong, Mouza-Panbari, had already been acquired/transferred permanently for defence purposes.

¶32

3.2 It is the further contention of the respondent No.2 in his affidavit that the defence land is demarcated by a pillar, and it was handed over by the representative of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (m). Thus, it is the stand that the subject land was acquired for defence purposes, i.e., Narengi Military Station.

¶33

3.3 A stand has also been taken that the mutation in respect of defence land of Narengi Military Station, has not yet been done by the State Government, for which correspondences and personal liaison with the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (m), the Circle Officer, Sonapur Revenue Circle, is going on from long time.

¶34

3.4 A specific stand has also been taken that the lands under Dag Nos. 648/665 were acquired for the Army by the Government of Assam, Revenue (Settlement) Department vide letter dated 07.02.1962 and the Government of Assam Declaration dated 24.03.1961. A map is also annexed along with the documents, which is signed by the Defence Estates Officer, Guwahati Circle.

¶35

Page No.# 5/10

¶36

4. The stand of the respondent Deputy Commissioner .

¶37

4.1 The Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (m) had also filed an affidavit on 04.05.2023 and in the said affidavit, a stand was taken that the name of the petitioner is recorded as pattadar of Kheraj Myadi lands, measuring, (i) 4 Kathas 8 Lechas, covered by Dag No. 648, (ii) 1 Bigha 4 Kathas 6 Lechas, covered by Dag No. 649, (iii) 2 Kathas 6 Lechas, covered by Dag 650 and (iv) 6 Bighas 4 Kathas 12 Lechas, covered by Dag No. 665, all are under Patta No. 32, situated at Village-Amchong under Sonapur Revenue Circle in the district of Karmup (m). It was admitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (m), that the subject land is presently under the possession of Satgaon Narengi Army Camp.

¶38

4.2 It was stated that the claim of the Defence authority is based on the communication dated 07.02.1962 of the Government of Assam Revenue (Settlement) Department and the Government of Assam declaration dated 24.03.1961.

¶39

4.3 In terms of this Court’s order dated 08.02.2022, the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (m), filed another affidavit. In the said affidavit, it is stated that the letter dated 07.02.1962, discloses that the Governor of Assam accorded sanction to transfer the total area of land, i.e., 2622 Bighas 3 Kathas 3 Lechas of Sarkari land of Villages, namely, Amchong P-I , Amchong P-II, Kalitakuchi, Jonsimalu, Bezera, Bagharbari, Satgaon, Birkuchi near Narengi to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence for CMA under land transfer rules on realisation of the market value and capitalised land revenue of the land, amounting to Rs. 22,90,966.75 n.p. only. A typed copy of the aforesaid communication dated 07.02.1962 is annexed with the aforesaid affidavit.

¶40

5. The stand of the respondent Circle Officer .

¶41

5.1 A stand has been taken that pursuant to the orders of this Court, in

¶42

Page No.# 6/10

¶43

presence of the Defence Estate Officer, Narengi Military Camp, the representative on behalf of the petitioner, the Land Revenue staff and the local Gaonpradhan, the joint survey & demarcation was carried out on 10.04.2024 successfully, smoothly and minutely over the subject land and the assistance of the Joint Director of Survey, Assam was also sought for and that the finding of the demarcation was to the effect that the recorded pattadar of the subject land is Bhauram Jodhraj (the petitioner) and the land parcels in question are inside the campus of Army Camp, Narengi Assam and are surrounded by the boundary walls and pillars of Army Camp as can be seen from the map prepared by the Assam Survey Department.

¶44

6. The stand of the respondent No. 2 to the aforesaid contentions .

¶45

6.1 In the aforesaid backdrop, this Court directed the State respondent to serve a copy of such affidavit to the learned counsel for the Union of India, so that the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, i.e., the Union of India and the Defence Estate Officer, can respond to such finding in the survey and enquiry.

¶46

6.2 Accordingly, a reply affidavit has been filed by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 on 26.09.2024, taking a stand that the subject land is defence acquired land and the same has been transferred/acquired by the Government of Assam Revenue (Settlement) Department vide letter No. RSD.3/62/52 dated 07.02.1962 and the Government of Assam declaration No. RLA.135/61/3 dated 24.03.1961. The subject land has been under the possession of the Defence since its acquisition and continues to be utilised by the Defence from the period of 1961-1962.

¶47

7. Findings of this Court.

¶48

7.1 This Court heard the learned counsels for the parties except for the respondents Nos. 1 & 2. Though, the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, allthroughout have been represented by the different CGCs and on the last occasion, the

¶49

Page No.# 7/10

¶50

aforesaid respondents were represented by Mr. S.K.Medhi, however, when the matter was taken up today, Mr. Medhi, submits that the brief has been taken from the office of CGC way back on 10.02.2025 by a communication issued by the Defence Estate Officer under No. DEO/GAU/LANDS/WP(C) No. 5094/2020/ VOL-I/54, and therefore, he has no authority to appear on behalf of the said respondents. Be that as it may, none appears for the aforesaid respondents, and no Vakalatanama is filed engaging new counsel for them. That being the position, this Court cannot await for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, inasmuch as, the matter has been pending since the year 2020, and the pleadings are complete. This Court has meticulously perused the pleadings of the parties, more particularly, the statements of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 as reflected in their affidavits, as they are not represented by counsel.

¶51

7.2 As the whole basis of the claim of the respondent No. 2 is the MLR, the same has duly been perused as annexed with his affidavits.

¶52

7.3 Copies of the ‘Extract from the MLR’ disclose that the land holding numbers are recorded in Volume-2 Page No. 59 of MLR (Annexure 2). The MLR further discloses that the holding numbers enlisted in the said Volume and Page are Sarkari lands, situated at village-Amchong Project-II, Mouza-Panbari in the district of Kamrup(m). Volume-2, Page No. 59 of MLR, further shows that those lands were acquired/transferred for defence purposes by the Government of Assam Revenue (Settlement) Department vide letter dated 07.02.1962 and the cost of such Sarkari land is Rs. 57,210.57/-np. In the aforesaid Volume-2, Page 59 of MLR, there are two holding numbers, i.e., holding numbers 648 & 665, which have similarity with two dag numbers of the petitioner firm, i.e., Dag Nos. 648/665, however, as recorded hereinabove, it is noted in Sl. No. 3 of the said annexure-2 that the said holding numbers were under Sarkari land.

¶53

7.4 Now coming to Volume-2 of Page No. 57 of MLR, under Sl No. 3, certain Dag numbers under Kheraj Patta land, are shown, and as per the

¶54

Page No.# 8/10

¶55

aforesaid MLR, those lands were private lands, situated at village-Amchong Porject-II Mouza-Pandbari in the District Kamrup (M), and acquired under RLA.No.135/61/3 dated 24.03.1961. However, none of the Dag Numbers, which the petitioner firm claims to be its patta land is reflected in the said Volume.

¶56

7.5 A closure scrutiny of Volume-2, Page 57 of MLR, relied on by the respondent No.2, clarifies that the Dag Numbers enlisted in the said documents relate to the private land and there is a reference of land acquisition process i.e., RLA.135/61/3 dated 24.03.1961 and it is also declared against Sl No. 6 of the said page that the cost of private land acquired is Rs. 3,97,997.17/-np.

¶57

7.6 To summarise, what is discernible from the two MLRs is that Dag Nos. 648/665, enlisted in the Volume-2, Page No. 59, which were stated to be Sarkari lands and were transferred by the Government of Assam Revenue (Settlement) Department. On the other hand, Dag numbers enlisted in Volume2, page No. 57, relate to the private land, which was acquired through the land acquisition process; however, the Dags enlisted therein do not include the Dag numbers of the subject land.

¶58

7.7 Thus, from the aforesaid, it is clearly seen that Dag Nos. 648/665 are shown to be transferred as the Government land by the Revenue (Settlement) Department, whereas admittedly, the said lands are patta lands and remaining Dag Nos. 649/650 are nowhere included in the MLR, and the land acquired for defence purposes from the private individual, the subject lands, are not included.

¶59

7.8 That being the position, this Court is of the unhesitant view that the revenue records reveal that the subject lands are patta lands and are under possession of the Respondent Nos . 1 and 2. Such findings of the revenue authorities are also not challenged by the Defence Authorities. This Court, so far relating to the status of a land, must place reliance on the finding of the

¶60

Page No.# 9/10

¶61

revenue authorities, more particularly, when it relates to the acquisition of land. It is the stand of the revenue authorities as well as of the Defence authorities that two parcels of lands, were transferred to the Defence authorities, one by the revenue Settlement Department under its letter dated 07.02.1962 being Government Khas land on receipt of the value and other parcel of the land being private patta land was handed over through a land acquisition process under RLA.135/61/3 dated 24.03.1961. Therefore, in the totality of the matter and based on the stands of the respondents, there is no hesitation in the mind of this Court that the subject lands are patta lands. Such land not being acquired under RLA.135/61/3 dated 24.03.1961, and, for the reason that it is the stand of the revenue authority that such land still remains private patta land, and therefore, patta land under possession of the Defence authorities, cannot be valid without same being acquired by following due process of law, inasmuch as, the record reveals that the land of the petitioner was not subject matter of any land acquisition process initiated for the defence purpose.

¶62

7.9 That being the position, this Court is having unhesitant view to hold that the occupation of the subject land by the Armed forces, without due process of law, is not sustainable in law. The fact remains that the jurisdictional Revenue authority, which can ascertain such fact, has already ascertained, after due survey, that the subject land is patta land of the petitioner, which the Defence authority has not been able to shake by any cogent material, except the fact, as recorded hereinabove that only two Dag Nos. 648/665 resemble with Sarkari land transferred by the State of Assam. There is no resemblance to any of the Dag numbers in the military record, which were acquired from the private individuals paying land acquisition compensation.

¶63

7.10 That being the position, the only option, left with this Court is to give an opportunity to the Armed Forces, either to acquire the aforesaid land by due

¶64

Page No.# 10/10

¶65

process of law or an alternative option for them is to hand over the possession of the subject land to its registered pattadar, i.e., the petitioner. Accordingly, the following directions are issued:-

¶66

(i) The respondents Nos. 1 & 2, shall decide within a period of one month from the date of furnishing of a certified copy of this order before the respondent No. 2 by the petitioner as to whether the Union of India in the Defence Ministry is willing to acquire the subject land under Dag Nos. 648/ 649/650/665.

¶67

(ii) If such a decision is in positive, then they shall, within a period of one month from such decision, request the collector, i.e., the Deputy/District Commissioner, Kamrup(m), to initiate the process of land acquisition.

¶68

(iii) In the event, the decision is negative, then the subject land will be handed over to the petitioner by the Defence authority in the presence of the District Commissioner Kamrup (m) or his/her representatives, within a period of one month therefrom.

¶69

8. With the aforesaid observation and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. Parties to bear their own costs.

¶70

JUDGE

¶71

Comparing Assistant

M/S Bhauram Jodhraj v. the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Bhauram Jodhraj v. the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dglc Online Solutions L.L.P an I.S Dealer of Btlepc Ltd. (Agro) and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Golakganj Municipal Fish Business Samity and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Md. Salam Sk and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Uttam Kumar Saha Vs the Union of India and 12 Ors.

Shri Hem Chandra Sarma Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Mofija Bagum Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.