Sabitri Talukdar Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

3:THE SETTLEMENT OFFICER GUWAHATI RE-SETTLEMENT OPERATION GHY ASSAM -----------Advocate for : MS M HAZARIKA Advocate for : SC REVENUE appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.

¶11

Page No.# 2/8

¶12

Linked Case : WP(C)/4855/2020

¶13

DAMAYANTI DAS W/O- SHRI MANABENDRA DAS R/O- P.O. BAHARIHAT BARPETA DISTRICT ASSAM- 781302 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPTT. OF REVENUE DISPUR GHY-06 2:THE DY. COMMISSIONER KAMRUP (M) PANBAZAR GHY ASSAM 3:THE SETTLEMENT OFFICER GUWAHATI RE-SETTLEMENT OPERATION GHY ASSAM -----------Advocate for : MS M HAZARIKA Advocate for : SC REVENUE appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.

¶14

Page No.# 3/8

¶15

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Date : 10.02.2026

¶18

Heard Ms. M. Hazarika, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. S. Chetry, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue and Disaster Management, appearing for the respondent no.1 and Mr. H. Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent nos.2 & 3.

¶19

2. The petitioners in the above noted 2 (two) writ petitions have prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to permit the petitioners to mutate their respective names in respect of the lands bought by them from one Pawan Kumar Jalan by way of execution of registered Sale Deeds.

¶20

3. The petitioner in WP(C).No.4851/2020 had bought a plot of land measuring 1 Katha 5 Lechas covered by Dag No.704 (old), Dag No.1114 (new) of K. P. Patta No.217 from one Pawan Kumar Jalan. The petitioner in WP(C).No.4855/2020 similarly had bought plot of land measuring 1 Katha 5 Lechas covered by Dag No.704 (old), Dag No.1114 (new) of K. P. Patta No.217 from the same vendor i.e. Pawan Kumar Jalan.

¶21

4. As projected in the above noted writ petitions, M/s Tea Leaf Growers and Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd. was allotted by the Government a plot of land measuring 20 Bighas 7 Lechas at concessional rates. Thereafter, the said Company sold a portion of the said land so allotted measuring 5 Bighas to one Pawan Kumar Jalan

¶22

Page No.# 4/8

¶23

after due permissions for the same was so granted by the competent authorities. The plot of land bought by Pawan Kumar Jalan from the said Company was also duly mutated in his name. Thereafter Pawan Kumar Jalan had sold the said plot of land to 7 (seven) other buyers, including the petitioners in the above noted writ petitions. Prior to execution of the Sale Deeds in this connection, Pawan Kumar Jalan, had approached the District Commissioner (Kamrup) for grant of permission for transfer of the land, which permission was duly granted. The Guwahati Development Municipal Development Authority also on an approach being made by the said Pawan Kumar Jalan had also granted No Objection Certificate (NOC) for the transfer of the land involved. Accordingly, vide execution of registered Sale Deeds, the land, in question, measuring 1.5 Katha each came to be transferred to the petitioners in the above noted 2 (two) writ petitions by Pawan Kumar Jalan.

¶24

The petitioners on the execution of the Sale Deed in their favour had approached the Revenue authorities for mutation of their names in the Jamabandi to the extend of the share of the land bought by them. On such approached being made, the petitioners in the above noted writ petitions were informed that their application for mutation would be considered only after the land Revenue dues payable was so cleared. They were also informed that the land Revenue dues is to be deposited in the name of the person whose name is reflected in the Jamabandi. It is at that relevant point of time that the petitioners in the above noted writ petitions could come to learn that the name of the vendor Pawan Kumar Jalan which was recorded in the Jamabandi, was cancelled subsequently by the Settlement Officer, Guwahati, vide an order dated 08.05.2008 in Misc Case No.95/07-08. On a further enquiry

¶25

Page No.# 5/8

¶26

the petitioners in the above noted writ petitions would come to learn that the cancellation of the mutation in respect of the original vendor Pawan Kumar Jalan was so done by applying the stipulations contained in the Government circular dated 05.12.2006.

¶27

Being aggrieved, the petitioners have instituted the present proceedings.

¶28

5. This Court at the outset would note that today this Court had interfered with the order dated 08.05.2008, in so far as it concerns the vendor of the petitioners in the above noted writ petitions, i.e., Pawan Kumar Jalan in the proceedings of WP(C).No.6360/2022.

¶29

6. Ms. M. Hazarika, learned Senior Counsel, for the petitioners in the above noted writ petitions has submitted that the petitioners were bonafide buyers of the land and the land, in question, were transferred to them by way of execution of registered Sale Deed by the vendor Pawan Kumar Jalan, after securing the due permission and NOC from the concerned authorities. She submits that valuable consideration came to be paid by the petitioners for the purpose of transfer of the land in their favour and they ought not to have been penalized basing on a prohibition introduced subsequently by the Government through the Government circular dated 05.12.2006. She further submits that when the sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioners in the month of January 2006, the ban order was not applicable and therefore, even with due diligence, the purchasers would have no reason to suspect the bonafide of the sale transactions. She submits that the transactions involving the vendor and the petitioners in the above noted writ petitions being bonafide transactions, carried out

¶30

Page No.# 6/8

¶31

strictly complying with the procedure in vogue at the relevant point of time, the petitioners cannot be deprived from enjoying the lands bought by them.

¶32

7. Per contra Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue and Disaster Management, submits that the Government land was allotted to M/s Tea Leaf Growers and Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd. at a concessional rate to facilitate establishment of a Training Institute intended to address the requirement of small tea growers. He submits that the said Institute was not established by the said allottee and the said allottee proceeded to transfer the land involved by way of sale with a profit motive. By referring to the circular dated 05.12.2006, he submits that the same also bring within its fold Government lands which were so allotted to various allotees prior to the issuance of the said circular wherein 10(ten) years have not lapsed since the date of the allotment made and/or possession taken over of the Government land by such allottee. He submits that on the date of cancellation of the mutation by Settlement Officer, 10 (ten) years having not lapsed since the date of allotment of Government land made with the said Company, the cancellation of the mutation effected, including the one so effected in respect of the vendor of the petitioner would not mandate an interference from this Court.

¶33

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials brought on record.

¶34

9. This Court in the proceeding of WP(C).No.6360/2022 having already interfered with the order dated 08.05.2008 in so far as it concerns the vendor Pawan Kumar Jalan, the same reasoning would

¶35

Page No.# 7/8

¶36

also apply in the case of the petitioners in the above noted writ petitions.

¶37

10. This Court noticing the facts and circumstances available on record is of the considered view that the vendor Pawan Kumar Jalan having transferred the land, in question, in favour of the petitioners by way of execution of registered Sale Deeds after due permission/NOC were obtained from the competent authorities for carrying out the transfer involved, stipulation contained in the circular dated 05.12.2006 could not have been made applicable retrospectively to interfere with the bonafide transactions already carried out between the vendor Pawan Kumar Jalan and the petitioners in the above noted writ petitions.

¶38

This Court is of the considered view that the transactions so involved would also not be permissible to be held to be in violation of Government policy as contained in the Circular dated 05.12.2006, inasmuch as, the policy in this connection was notified much after the transactions involved in the above noted 2 (two) writ petitions was concluded.

¶39

11. In view of the above reasoning, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners, herein, have made out a case for issuance of directions upon the respondent authorities for permitting the petitioners to have their respective names mutated in the Jamabandi in respect of the land bought by them from the vendor Pawan Kumar Jalan by way of execution of the registered Sale Deeds. The petitioners, herein, are directed to submit fresh applications for mutation of their respective names against the land bought by them individually from the said

¶40

Page No.# 8/8

¶41

vendor Pawan Kumar Jalan. The competent authorities on receipt of such application shall proceed to consider the same and pass appropriate order in the matter permitting the petitioners to mutate their names against the plot of land bought from the vendor. It is provided that application of the petitioners be not rejected by invoking the prohibition as introduced in the Government circular dated 05.12.2006.

¶42

12. With the above observations and directions, the above noted writ petitions stand disposed of.

¶43

JUDGE

¶44

Comparing Assistant

Sabitri Talukdar v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabitri Talukdar v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dip Kumar Medhi Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Uttam Das Vs the State of Assam and Othrs

Biocare Associates Vs the State of Assam

M/S Jayanta Kumar Ghosh Outdoor Catering Private Ltd. and Anr. Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

Dhanada Das and 5 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Sambhu Charan Barman Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.