MANORANJAN SAHA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein happens to be husband and wife whereas respondents 6 and 7 happen to be the elder brother of petitioner No. 1 and his sister-in-law. Said respondents however are husband and wife between them. Petitioners appeared to have been living in Dag No. 410 and 411 in Hojai Town No. 3 for some period of time. Accordingly they approached the State Government with application for settlement of that land in their favour. Considering petitioners prayer for settlement, the Government vide order dated. 1.8.90 Annexure-1 to the writ petition ordered for the settlement of 2Ks-10 Ls from the land in their favour subject to the payment of premium@ 100% at the market value of the land which was fixed at Rs 47,000/- per bigha. It also directed for the correction of revenue records accordingly. It appears that the said order was not to the satisfaction of petitioners as the sum of Rs 47,000/- which was fixed bv way of price of the land per bigha was considered too high hence unacceptable. They again approached the State Government for reduction of the amount payable by them for the said land. Accordingly vide order dated 14.5.91 the State Government rescinded its earlier order dated 1.8.90 and passed a fresh order of settlement of the land in favour of petitioners at a fixed rate of Rs 10,000/- per bigha. It is alleged that petitioners made part of the payment to the government, Despite that order of settlement was not implemented as neither possession of the land was delivered to them nor necessary correction of the land records was carried out. Feeling aggrieved on that account petitioners filed C.R. No. 651/ 92 before this court. A division Bench, of this court comprising Hon'ble the C. J. (Mr Justice U. L.Bhat) and Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. A. Shishak vide order dated 8.6.92 disposed the Civil Rule without deciding it on merit. The Court was informed by the learned government advocate that the order of settlement could not be implement as appeal against that order had been filed before the State Government by respondents 6 and 7. This court accordingly directed the State Government to hear the petitioners also in the appeal of the said respondents while deciding it. From petitioners own averment made in paragraph 11 of the petition it would appear that they appeared before the government and filed their affidavit for contesting the claims of respondents 6 and 7 before the State Government. Petitioners maintained in their affidavit that claim for the settlement of the land made by respondents 6 and 7 in their own favour was frivolous on the ground that the respondent 6 happened to be his elder brother who was given shelter by him when he had come to him along with his family members from Agartala in the year 1970 on being evicted by Railway authorities from Railway land. Since then he has been living with him as his guest and had set up a false case for allotment of land which was in his possession. It would further appears from petitioners averments he had made in paragraph 12 of the writ petition that the State Government, vide order dated 29.10.92 allowed respondents appeal and directed for allotment of the land in favour of the petitioners as well as respondents 6 and 7. Thereafter petitioners. again approached the State Government for seeking stay of the operation of the order dated 29.10.92 and the said order was stayed and several interim stay orders were passed by the Government from time to time. Order dated 29.10.92 however has not been rescinded and is still intact. Ultimately by impugned order dated 2.4.96 (Annexure- 12) the State Government has made fresh order of settlement of the land as per its decision in the appeal of respondents 6 and

(2.) Smt. Minati Saha-0 K 41s

(3.) Sri Sukharanjan Saha-Ok 71s