Chandrapur Cooperative Colective Farming Society Ltd. and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010031372024

¶3

2025:GAU-AS:14860

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/911/2024

¶6

CHANDRAPUR COOPERATIVE COLECTIVE FARMING SOCIETY LTD AND ANR

¶7

REPRESENTED BY SRI SANJAY CHAUHAN S/O LATE KALI KR. CHAUHAN, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, THE PRESIDENT OF CHANDRAPUR COOPERATIVE COLLECTIVE FARMING SOCITY LTD, HOJAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - PUB DHANIRAM PATHAR, P.O- TELIBASTI, HOJAI, P.S- HOJAI, DISTRICT- HOJAI, ASSAM, PIN - 782435.

¶8

2: SRI BROJA KISHOR SINGHA S/O LATE BROJA CHAND SINGHA SECRETARY CHANDRAPUR COLLECTIVE FARMING SOCITY LTD. HOJAI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GOCHORA BASTI HOJAI P.O- GOLAGHATIA BASTI P.S- HOJAI DISTRICT- HOJAI ASSAM PIN - 782435

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI -06

¶11

2:DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM REVENUE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI 06

¶12

3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

¶13

Page No.# 2/5

¶14

DISTRICT - HOJAI ASSAM.

¶15

4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER HOJAI REVENUE CIRCLE HOJAI SANKAR DEV NAGAR ASSAM

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. P BARMAN (BORKAKOTI), MR. S K SINGH

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, REVENUE

¶18

BEFORE

¶19

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶20

ORDER

¶21

04-11-2025

¶22

1. Heard Ms. P. Barman, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing counsel, Revenue Department for the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4. Also heard Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, learned State counsel for the respondent No. 3.

¶23

2. The present writ petition is filed along with the prayers, which are quoted hereinbelow:-

¶24

“In the premises aforesaid, it is most respectfully prayed that, your Lordships may be pleased to admit this Petition, call for the records of the case, issue a Rule, calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a Writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued, directing the Respondent Authorities to dispose the Representations submitted by the Petitioner till date and also be pleased to pass an Order directing the Respondent Authorities to issue patta of the land covered by Dag No. 346 measuring about 300 bighas under Golaghatia Village Grazing Reserve of Hojai Mouza

¶25

Page No.# 3/5

¶26

to the Petitioner Society and on cause or causes being shown and after hearing the parties your Lordships may be pleased to make the Rule absolute and/or may be pleased to pass such further order or orders as your Lordships may deem fit and proper.”

¶27

3. The background facts as pleaded by the petitioners are to the effect that by a communication dated 08.06.1962, the Under Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Revenue (Settlement) Department, Grazing Branch, Shillong intimated the then Deputy Commissioner, Nowgong in reference to the communication dated 18.05.1962 that the Governor of Assam has sanctioned to temporarily throwing open of 300 Bihgas of land of Golaghatia Village grazing ground under Hojai Mouza in a compact block for a period of three years for cultivation by Sri Chandra Singh and 25 others and Shri Chandar Kanta Gohain and 12 others.

¶28

4. Subsequently, by another communication dated 26.09.1966, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam intimated the Deputy Commissioner, Nowgong that the Governor of Assam sanctioned de-reservation of an area of 300 Bighas of land from Golaghatia Village Grazing Reserve of Hojai Mouza for settlement with the Chandrapur Cooperative Collective Farming Society Ltd. as per proposal of the Deputy Commissioner, Nowgong.

¶29

5. The petitioners herein claim to be the said Chandrapur Co-operative Collective Farming Society and its Secretary and according to them, they are continuing cultivation. However, even after de-reservation of the land in question, no patta has been issued in their favour. Accordingly, the petitioners preferred representation, which is remained unattended.

¶30

6. On the other hand, the State respondent raised an objection to the effect that though the name of the society in the order of de-reservation recorded as Chandrapur Cooperative Collective Farming Society Ltd. and the registration number reflected in the communication dated 26.09.1966 is as No. RSC.203/66/26, however, after verification, it

¶31

Page No.# 4/5

¶32

was found that the society against the aforesaid registration number is recorded as Chandrapur Krishi Pam Samabai Society Ltd.

¶33

7. It is the further contention of the respondents that such de-reservation was subject to a condition that the land will revert to the Government in the Revenue Department, if the same is not utilized for the specific purpose for which it was dereserved and it is the specific stand of the Government that neither the petitioner society have any possession over the land in question nor there is any cultivation for which purpose the land was de-reserved.

¶34

8. It is also the contention of the respondents that the land is to be treated as dereserved for not fulfilling the conditions and therefore, at this stage, in terms of the Assam Land Policy, 2019 as well as the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 and the settlement Rules framed thereunder, no VGR and PGR land can be settled, except with the permission from the Government subject to the condition that the equal area of land is reserved for VGR and/or PGR.

¶35

9. On the other hand, the petitioners deny such statement and asserts that they are in continuous possession and the purpose for which the land was allotted to them, is still being continued.

¶36

10. In the aforesaid backdrop and in the backdrop of the prayer made in this writ petition as recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the opinion that such disputed fact cannot be determined by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, more particularly, whether the petitioners are still in possession of the land in question and are utilizing the land for the purpose for which it was de-reserved and whether the land is lying vacant and therefore, the same is automatically de-reserved for non fulfilling the purpose.

¶37

11. Such determination is to be made by the factual adjudication inasmuch as to establish their claim. The petitioners are to show their continuance as a co-operative society till date and that they are pursuing the purpose for which the land was allotted to

¶38

Page No.# 5/5

¶39

them. Such factual assertion can be made through different documents, not to be exhaustive, but which may include the proof of holding of annual general meeting continuously, proof of their adjudication of balance sheet and their income from cultivation etc.

¶40

12. In the aforesaid backdrop, the learned counsels for the parties have agreed that the matter may be relegated to the District Commissioner, Hojai to decide the issue in its entirety.

¶41

13. Accordingly, the petitioners are permitted to file a comprehensive and fresh representation before the concerned authority to lay the bonafide claim over the aforesaid land. Such representation be filed by the petitioners within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶42

14. In the event, such fresh representation is filed by the petitioners within the stipulated time, the District Commissioner, Hojai, shall give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and shall pass a speaking order in this regard, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order to be furnished by the petitioners. For proper adjudication, the District Commissioner, Hojai, may also take assistance from the Department of Co-opeartion.

¶43

15. Since the authorities have raised claim and counter-claim as regards the possession of the land in question, the status quo in respect of land in question measuring 300 Bighas which was purportedly de-reserved under communication dated 26.09.1966 , be maintained till the decision of the District Commissioner, Hojai.

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

Comparing Assistant

Chandrapur Cooperative Colective Farming Society Ltd. and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrapur Cooperative Colective Farming Society Ltd. and Anr. v. the State of Assam 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

Subhash Ch Paul and Anr. Vs the Union of India and 7 Ors.

B D Nath Alias Bapan Debnath Vs the State of Assam

Smt. Bajanti Karmakar Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Archana Dutta Mallick Vs the Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jorhat Divisional Office

Asmina Khatun and 24 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Kasem Ali Alias Kasham Ali and 29 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.