ANCHAD JWHALAO BRAHMA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the Interlocutory Applications being filed for modification / vacation of the interim order dated 08.11.2019 passed in IA(C) No.3593/2019 arising out of WP(C) No.5146/2019, the same are heard together and disposed of by this common order. It may be mentioned that IA(C) No.1956/2020 is filed by the private respondent no. 7, who was newly impleaded in the writ petition vide order dated 12.11.2020 passed in IA(C) No.1875/2020 whereas IA(C) No.2039/2020 is filed by the Forest Department.

(2.) For appreciation of the rival contentions, a brief narration of the facts of the case would be necessary.

(3.) Initially, there were four Mahals under the Dhubri Forest Division, namely, Sapatgram, Silbari, Khoraghat and Changbandha. Since creation of the Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC), a dispute had arisen regarding the jurisdiction over the Silbari and Khoraghat Mahals. The said dispute was ultimately resolved by this Court vide an order passed in WP(C) No.4892/2009 directing the Department to settle the matter. Pursuant to the said direction, 2 separate Mahals were carved out from each of the two aforesaid Mahals. From Silbari, Bhelakopa was carved out whereas, from Khoraghat Soulmari was carved out. Thus Bhelakopa and Khoraghat fell within BTC whereas, Silbari and Soulmari fell within the jurisdiction of the State. The aforesaid decision is the subject matter of challenge of the writ petition. The principal ground is that the new sand Mahals are upstream the Tipkai river which were in close vicinity and if the proposed new Mahals were settled with prospective bidders, the business of the writ petitioner would be jeopardized who is the settlement holder of the Mahals which are downstream. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the settlement holder of two sand Mahals, namely, Changbandha and Sapatgram.