PARESH GOSWAMI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. C. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has challenged the order dated 13th April, 1995 passed by the Govt. of Assam, Revenue Reforms Deptt., Dispur in exercise of power under Sec. 59 (2) of the Assam (Temporarily Settled Area) Tenancy Act, 1971 whereby the petitioner's application for revision of tenancy records of rights in respect of Khatian No. 75 of village Janji of Mouja Borduar in Palasbari in the District of Kamrup has been rejected.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that petitioner is a recorded pattadar of KP Patta No. 201 (Dag No. 865) respondent No. 4 obtained Khatian on the basis of posses- sion claimed tenancy right over the said land. Accordingly Revenue authorities issued notice to the petitioner. It was at this stage that petitioner challenged the correctness of the record of rights including issuance of khatian in favour of the respondent No. 4 by the revenue authorities in^e- spect of the land by filing revision petition before the State Government u/s 59 (2) of the Act. In his revision petition, amongst other things, petitioner pleaded that entire exercise for entering the name of respondent No.4 in the khatian as tenant was carried out by the Revenue authorities secretly without his knowledge and without affording opportunity of hearing to him as also without following the procedure which is prescribed in that regard under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

(3.) On petitioner's revision the State Government issued notices to respondent No. 4 as well as to the Deputy Commissioner. Deputy Commissioner submitted his parawise comments whereas respondent No. 4 appeared before the State Government. The record too was summoned by the State Government. From the records it was found by the Government that petitioner had wrongly pleaded in the revision petition before it that he was not aware of the proceeding in relation to the issuance of khatian in favour of respondent No. 4 at any stage and that khatian in respect of the land in dispute was issued to the respondent No. 4 behind his back. State Government found from the record that petitioner had appeared before the Settlement Officer and contested the case of respondent No.4. For issuance of khatian in respect of the land in dispute and the Settlement Officer after hearing the parties decided the case against the petitioner after affording opportunity of hearing to him. Against the order of the Settlement Officer an appeal and thereafter a second Appeal though was provided under the Act but had not been filed by the petitioner. He however approached the State Government by filing the revision after lapse of about 11 years from the date the passing of the order by the Settlement Officer. In the above circumstances, State Government found that the case set up by the petitioner was wholly false.