MD. SALAK UDDIN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. P. K. Roychoudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Mr. D. Saikia, the learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned Standing counsel, Revenue Department, Government of Assam appears for the State of Assam. We have also heard Mr. B. D. Deka, the learned Amicus Curiae.

(2.) The present writ petition was filed by the Petitioner herein claiming inter alia that he is in occupation of a land measuring 2 Kathas 10 Lechas covered by Dag No.8 (Part) situated at Paschim Dhaniram Pathar, Hojai, Assam for the last 10 years. The Petitioner thereupon had constructed a house and his family is residing therein. It is the further case of the Petitioner that there is a Grazing Reserve called Dhaniram Pathar Grazing Reserve under Jogijan Mouza, Hojai which is covered by Dag No.8 (Part). It was the further case of the Petitioner that this Dhaniram Pathar Grazing Reserve was constituted about 50 years back for the benefit of the people of the surrounding villages. However, many of the families who were landless were given settlement of land by the Government in one corner of the said Grazing Reserve. It is also claimed by the Petitioner that the Petitioner has been paying the land revenue to the competent authority and had also approached the appropriate authority for settlement of the land in favour of the Petitioner inasmuch as the Grazing Reserve land was de-reserved. It is also alleged that the Respondents are in the process to evict the Petitioner from the possession of his land that too without notice and due procedure. It is under such circumstances, the instant writ petition was filed seeking direction upon the Respondent Authorities to consider the case of the Petitioner for settlement of land measuring 2 Kathas 10 Lechas covered by Dag No.8 (Part) situated at Paschim Dhaniram Pathar under Jogijan Mouza in the District of Hojai, Assam in favour of the Petitioner. Pending disposal of the writ petition, the Petitioner had sought for a direction upon the Respondent Authorities not to evict the Petitioner from the land in his possession.

(3.) Upon the writ petition being filed, it was contended on behalf of the Petitioner before the learned Single Judge that without issuance of any notice under Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, 1886 (for the sake of convenience referred to as "the Regulation"), the Petitioner cannot be evicted from the land under his possession and in that regard, the Petitioner referred to the judgment of the Single Bench of the Court in the case of Bimal Chandra Das Vs. State of Assam reported in 2018 (1) GLR 30 wherein it was observed that without issuance of a notice under Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules, the State Respondents cannot evict the Petitioner therein. On the other hand, the Revenue Department of the Government of Assam contended before the learned Single Judge that the provision of Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules empowered the authorities to evict any person in possession of reserved land including a land reserve for grazing of village cattle and for any other purpose without issuance of prior notice before eviction. The learned counsel representing the Revenue Department placed another judgment of the Single Bench in the case of Kundargaon Anti Eviction Action Committee Vs. State of Assam and Others reported in (2006) 3 GLR 99 wherein it was held that Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules does not provide any notice before eviction.