ARSHAD KHAN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Atal Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Jayanta Chutiya, learned Standing Counsel for the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council. The State of Assam has been represented by Mr N Das, learned Government Advocate.

(2.) These 5 (five) writ petitions have been preferred by the petitioners, apprehending eviction proceedings at the hands of the respondent authorities in the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council from the land which they claim to have possessed for a long period of time, in some cases, even from the times of their grandfathers. The crux of the assertions made in each of the writ petition is given below:

(3.) Mr. A. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since all the writ petitions have been filed on the basis of apprehension of forceful and unlawful eviction to be suffered at the hands of the respondent authorities and since, admittedly, the petitioners in all the writ petitions are similarly placed, a reference to the pleadings in WP(C)/432/2022 would suffice. Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel has referred to the copies of the Katcha Patta and copy of the relevant portion of the jamabandi for surveyed villages issued for the Barjan Mouza under Diphu Circle to support his assertion that the names of forefathers of the petitioners/predecessors in interest of the petitioners are recognised in the revenue records. He has thereafter referred to the notice dated 25-22010 to submit that a process for acquiring certain land, including land standing in the name of the petitioners, had been initiated by the concerned authorities and objections were also submitted by the landowners. He has stated that the acquisition proceedings thereafter did not materialize. The learned counsel has submitted that more than 10 years later, the authorities in the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council issued notices purportedly under the provisions of Regulation 18(2) and 18(3) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations directing the notice receivers to vacate the land under their occupation on the allegation that the land under occupation was Government land and that the said land was being possessed without permission. Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel has submitted, on the basis of the annexures made available in the writ petition, that several persons had received such notices and the common thread running amongst all the notices was that they were issued in reference to Miscellaneous Case no 1570 of 26/11/2021. It has been submitted that such notices were assailed before this Court in writ petitions, one such petition being WP(C) 6758/2021, wherein in the order dtd. 16/12/2021, this Court had recorded the stand of the respondent Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council that the notices dtd. 26/11/2021 had been withdrawn through order no KAAC/Rev-1411 Pt/2020/1168 dtd. 14/12/2021. On the said basis the writ petitions were disposed of as infructuous.