PRATAP CH. PATHAK Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. AC Sarma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. B Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. K Phukan, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 and Ms. R Kalita, learned counsel for the respondents No. 5, 6, 7 and 8.

(2.) The present petitioner as stated in the petition is in occupation of land measuring 2B 3K 17L covered by Dag No. 212 of KP Patta No. 40 of village Malancha under Mouza Nagarbera in the district of Kamrup. It is the contention of the present petitioner that on 18.11.1980, one Narendra Kalita transferred his interest over the said land to the petitioner and handed over the possession on that day. The petitioner continued to be in possession over the said land so purchased and there was no objection on the part of the said Narendra Kalita during his life time. The present respondent No. 7 on 21.10.2009 made an application before the Circle Officer, Nagarbera for mutation of his name in respect of the land measuring 2B 1K 2L which purportedly was sold by his predecessor-in-interest to the present petitioner. The claim of the present respondent No. 7 was with regard to the Dag No. 213 of annual patta and there was discrepancy with regard to the dag numbers. The Circle Officer did not pass any order on the said application and the same was referred to the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup at Amingaon took up the matter and registered a case bearing Misc. Case No. 1/2010-11 and notices were issued to the petitioner and on receipt of the said notice an objection was filed before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Amingaon. Vide order dated 29.06.2011, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Amingaon rejected the prayer of the present respondent No. 7 for mutation of his name over the said land. Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred before the Hon'ble Assam Board of Revenue which was registered as Case No. 74 RA(K)/2014. Before the Board of Revenue, the respondents No. 5 to 8 represented themselves as the legal heirs of Late Narendra Kalita and on his death, their contention are that they had inherited the same. It was also disputed that Narendra Kalita during his life time ever sold the land to the petitioner and his name was wrongly recorded in the Chitha and so prayed for cancellation of the name of the petitioner from the Chitha incorporating their names in place of Late Narendra Kalita by way of inheritance. The Hon'ble Board of Revenue took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 16.09.2014 allowed the appeal granting mutation of the present respondents No. 5 to 8 and setting aside the mutation granted in the name of the present petitioner vide order dated 104.1997 by the Circle Officer, Nagarbera. Not only that the learned Chairman, Assam Board of Revenue further directed to refer the matter to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department for registering a criminal case against the petitioner and the Circle Officer who granted mutation in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 104.1997. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the order dated 16.09.2014 passed by the Hon'ble Assam Board of Revenue in Case No. 74 RA(K)/2013.

(3.) Mr. Sarma, learned Senior Counsel submits that the learned Chairman ought not to have granted the prayer of the respondents No. 5 to 8 inasmuch as rightly or wrongly, a sale transaction was there in between the present petitioner and the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents No. 5 to 8. Moreover, the name of the present petitioner was recorded way back on 12.04.1997 and much later thereafter the present respondents No. 5 to 8 came up before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Amingaon for correction and record their names. The learned Chairman while passing the impugned judgment and order observed that the claim of the present petitioner is on the basis of the unregistered sale deed which was about 17 years old and as the sale is not acceptable on the basis of unregistered sale deed, even then the Circle Officer allowed the name of the present petitioner to be recorded. Thereafter, learned Chairman without any rhyme and reason came to the conclusion that the nature of the claim shows a case of land grabbing along with connivance of the revenue staff. Accordingly, the mutation granted by the Circle Officer in favour of the present petitioner was set aside. In the concluding portion of the said judgment and order, the learned Chairman directed the matter to be referred to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department for registering a criminal case against the present petitioner, Pratap Chandra Pathak and the Circle Officer who granted mutation in his favour.