SATYARANJAN PAUL MAJUMDAR Vs. ASSAM BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Division Bench which heard these writ petitions was of the opinion that they involve an interpretation as to the scope and extent of Section 151 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 in the light of the observations in Civil Rules Nos. 202 and 203 of 1965 disposed of on 31-5-1967, Civil Rule No. 312 of 1971 disposed of on 8th June, 1973 and Civil Rule No. 93 of 1971 disposed of on 11-5-1973. Hence these writ petitions have been referred to this Bench.

(2.) A plot of land measuring 4 kathas 2 lechas covered by Dag No. 405, Patta No. 120 of Mowkhowa Mouza, Golaghat Town, originally belonged to Abdul Sattar and Smt. Ayesha Bibi and in a part of the said land there is a building known as Tokani building. The building was in the occupation of some tenants at the relevant time. In respect of the said land arrears of land revenue for some years accrued and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Golaghat-started a sale proceeding, namely, Land Sale Case No. 546/68-69 for bringing the land to sale by public auction. The said sale case was conducted by the Bakijai Officer and the formalities prior to sale were carried out by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Golaghat. With regard to the service of sale notice, the process server is alleged to have gone to the land and, not having found the original pattadars of the land, the notice was served by hanging it on the property in the presence of some of the witnesses including the present petitioner. Thereafter, the process-server sent his report to the Sub-Divisional Officer to that effect. The land was sold by public auction on 16-1-1969 and the highest bid of Rs. 1,401/- offered by the petitioner was accepted. The necessary deposits were made by the petitioner and after the expiry of 60 days from the date of sale it was duly confirmed.

(3.) THE petitioner entered appearance in the cases and filed an affidavit-in-opposition alleging, among other things, that no part of the land sold was ever gifted to the Masjid, that the original pattadars of the land left for Pakistan long ago, that their whereabouts were not known, that the question of attachment of the movable properties belonging to the original pattadars before bringing the land to sale could not arise and that the provisions of the Regulation had been complied with. He also contended that there was inordinate delay in filing the applications under Section 81 of the Regulation and therefore the applications were clearly barred by limitation.