PRAFULLA CHANDRA GOSWAMI ON HIS DEATH HIS LEGAL HEIRS SMT. GOURI PROVA GOSWAMI AND ORS. Vs. NATUN ASHOMIA (P) LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have challenged an order of the Deputy Commissioner Kamrup made on 19.7.82 in Case No. 82(Rs) of 1980 and the order of the Assam Board of Revenue passed 27.3.86 in Case No 198 RA (K) 82 affirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner on appeal.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are as follows. The Government of Assam, in exercise of the power conferred by Sub -section (1) of Section 3 of the Assam State Acquisition of Land Belonging to Religious and Charitable Institution of Public Nature Act, 1959, for short "the Act", by a notification dated 1.3.67 published in the Assam Gazette of 8.3.67, declared that about 26262 Bighas of land belonging to Kamakhya temple shall stand transferred and vest in the State free from all encumbrances with effect from 15.4.67. It is not disputed that on the date of notification (1.3.67). the Petitioners were tenant of the Kamakhya temple in respect of 4B 3K 5L of the land under the notification. But, of 4B 3K 5L land measuring 1B 4K 5L was in occupation of the Respondent - -1 Natun Ashomi (P) Ltd as a sub -tenant. After the acquisition, annual patta was issued to the Petitioners in respect of 4B 3K 5L of the land for 5 years from 67 -71. Thereafter, a periodic patta No. 28 was issued to the Petitioners and they have been paying revenue. However, on the application made by the Respondent Natun Ashomia (P) Ltd. the Deputy Commissioner corrected the record of rights in respect of 1B 4K 5L and recorded the same in the name of the Respondent by order dated 19.7.82. On appeal by the Petitioners the Assam Board of Revenue dismissed the appeal (sic, on) 27.3.86 and affirmed the order. Hence this application.

(3.) SHRI A.S. Bhattacharjee, the learned Counsel for the Respondent 1, has, inter alia, submitted that the present case is covered by the decision of the Court reported as, 1977 ALR 136 (DB) Rajendra Nath v. Jugeswar Talukdar. In that case, this Court has while interpreting the word 'raiyat' employed under Section 15 of the Act in connection with the acquisition of about 145 Bighas agricultural land, held that the 'raiyat' has direct relation with the Occupation of the land for cultivation and, under Section 15, only the raiyat who is in actual possession of the land is entitled to settlement, and not the Khatian holders. The present is a case with respect to non -agricultural land.