BIKRAM PHUKAN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment and order dated 16.06.2016 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.660/2010 has been called in question in the present writ appeal.

(2.) The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents No.5 to 9 herein was Patela Boro who became an occupancy tenant with respect to land covered by Dag No.118 of Kheraj Patta No.143 of Mouza Beltola in village Betkuchi under predecessor-in-interest of the present appellant. A Khatian was issued in favour of the original occupancy tenant under Chapter X of the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which unless rebutted is liable to be presumed to be correct under Section 58 of the Act. An occupancy tenant, as defined in Section 4(1)(i) of the Act is one who has been holding immediately under a proprietor, landholder or settlement holder other than landholder having right of occupancy over the agricultural land under occupation. Right of occupancy, on the other hand, can be acquired by a person who has continuously held a land as tenant as provided under Section 5 of the Act. Section 23 of the Act entitles an occupancy tenant to acquire ownership right and intermediary rights.

(3.) Four sons of Late Patela Boro having inherited the occupancy right under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act filed application before the Revenue Officer at Kamrup under Form No.5 prescribed under Rule 9 of the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). They mentioned the name of predecessor of the present appellant as one of the pattadars in the application in the prescribed Form. In fact, the names of three pattadars were duly mentioned in the application. The applicants prayed for ownership right with respect to land covered by Khatian No.166 and with respect to land covered by K.P. Patta No.143 and Dag No.118 having land revenue of Rs.9.90. The Deputy Commissioner thereafter issued notice under Form No.6 to the landlords and one Hemen Phukan accepted the notices. As no objection was filed thereafter from the side of the landlords the Extra Assistant Commissioner, who is a Revenue Officer within the meaning of Section 3(14) of the Act, passed an order on 03.05.1986 in the Tenancy Case No.586/1984 giving opinion that the raiyots named in the proceeding is entitled to get ownership right by giving compensation to the landlord equivalent to 50 times of the land revenue which was Rs.9.40 per year at that time as per Appendix-24 of the Act.