NABAM TAPIN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Mr. S.S. Dey, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. U.K. Nair, learned counsel for the respondents. I have also heard Ms. V.L. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the official respondent. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India two petitioners have challenged issuance of periodic patta in favour of respondent No. 5 on 20.06.1997 by way of conversion of earlier annual patta granted to the father of the respondent No. 5. According to the writ petitioners, the said area is covered by a notification under Section 162 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation and as such the said land can ordinarily be settled with any tribal only. The case of the writ petitioner is that the respondent No. 5 is non tribal and as such granting of patta in his favour is illegal.

(2.) Mr. U.K. Nair, learned counsel for the respondents submits that his predecessors had been in possession of the land since pre independence days and as such in view of Section 163(2)(c) there is no bar for granting settlement to the petitioner by way conversion of annual patta into periodical patta on the basis of inheritance. The learned Government advocate has drawn my attention to the affidavit filed on behalf of the official respondent. In paragraph 12 of the said affidavit it has been stated as follows:

(3.) The above paragraph itself shows the nature of consideration basing on which the settlement was made in favour of the private respondent. The scope of settling land to a non-tribal has been given on limited ground under Section 163(2)(c) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation (hereinafter referred to as 'the regulation') Section 163(2)(c) is quoted below: