STATE OF ASSAM Vs. RADHA KANOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Though the respondents have been served they are not appearing either in person or through counsel. However, we have taken the assistance of Shri P. K. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel who has rich experience in this branch of law in the State of Assam. The only question is: whether the respondents have acquired any right in the land in encroachment Cases Nos. 5 of 1983 and 57 of 1986 Proceedings in the said case were quashed by the Guwahati High court in Civil Rule No. 1243 of 1987 by judgment dated 26/3/1993 which is being followed in all other cases. The High court has held that the respondents are not encroachers. Touzi Bahira Revenue is not a panel rental but the respondents having been found in possession of the land they cannot be ejected under Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules except after due ejectment in accordance with the law. The question, therefore, is: whether the view of the High court is correct in law

(3.) Shri Goswami contends that when mauzadar collects the rent from the occupants it is a collection within the meaning of Rule 39 of the executive instructions. The mauzadar, as contemplated under Rule 122 of the instructions, is enjoined to keep an account of collections and to deposit the same in the treasury once in four months. On the collections so made, the persons are entitled to remain in occupation until they are either confirmed with the lease or duly ejected in accordance with the law. The question, therefore, is: what is the status the respondents acquired under the regulation, the rules or the instructions read together It is seen that Section 3 (b) of Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 (1 of 1886 (for short, the 'regulation') defines an 'estate' to include: