LAWS(GAU)-2016-4-60

MRS ARCHANA BARUA, WIFE OF LATE PRITISH JIBAN BARUA, RESIDENT OF WARD NO.2, BARNAPATTY, GAURIPUR, P.S. Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI

Decided On April 21, 2016
Mrs Archana Barua, Wife of Late Pritish Jiban Barua, Resident of Ward No.2, Barnapatty, Gauripur, P.S. Appellant
V/S
The State of Assam, represented by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Land Revenue Department, Dispur, Guwahati Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A. K. Purkayastha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. MH Rajborbhuiya, the learned counsel appearing for the private respondent Nos.6-24. The Govt. Advocate Mr. P.S. Deka appears for the respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 & 5.

(2.) This matter pertains to Gouripur Zamindari Estate land in village Kaldoba, Part-I within Agamoni Revenue Circle in Dhubri District. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners Late Sarat Ch. Barua was the khatiandar of the said plot of land but after abolition of the zamindary estate through the Assam State Acquisition of Zamindaries Act, 1951, the widow and sons of the original khatiandar were declared as the joint pattadars of the land in the year 1977, following the resettlement operation of 1975-76. The writ petitioners herein are the legal heirs of the joint pattadars.

(3.) On the other hand, the respondents too claimed khatian rights as tenants under the predecessors of the writ petitioners and it is their pleaded case that separate draft khatian(s) were prepared individually for the private respondents in the year 1982 and one such draft khatian was issued for Anil Ch. Barman @ Roy (respondent No.8) and the sample khatian is enclosed herein as Annexure-5. A portion of the subject land was acquired for laying the railway tracks through the L.A. Case No.18/2004-05 and the private respondents, on the basis of the draft khatian and possession, made a claim for a share of compensation and objected to the entire payable amount being disbursed to the writ petitioners as the patta holders.