DHUBRI LADIES CLUB Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. R.C. Saikia, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for all the respondents.

(2.) The appellants are before this Court assailing the order dated 21.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.1265/2011. The appellants herein claiming to be aggrieved by the action of the respondents herein with the proposal dated 20.02.2010 to allot 1 Katha 10 Lechas of land in favour of Dhubri District Museum in Dag No.1377 was before the learned Single Judge assailing the action of the respondents. The learned Single Judge having considered the rival contentions noted that through the said proposal, which was approved for the grant of land to Dhubri District Museum, allotment granted was restricted only to the extent of 1 Katha 10 Lechas out of the total extent measuring 4 Kathas 10 Lechas in Dag No.1377 and in that light, the learned Single Judge being of the opinion that the appellants herein cannot make out any grievance with regard to such proposal for allotment of land to the Dhubri District Museum had disposed of the writ petition and vacated the interim order, which had been granted earlier. It is in that light, the appellant herein, who were the writ petitioners, are before this Court in this intra-Court appeal assailing the said order.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the matter in its correct perspective. It is contended that the entire extent of 4 Kathas 10 Lechas in Dag No.1377 is shown against the name of the appellants herein in the Chitha for the surveyed villages. In that light, it is contended that in such circumstance, the land which is shown against the name of the appellants herein and which is in possession of the appellants could not have been allotted in favour of any other entity including the Dhubri District Museum. In order to contend that pursuant to such indication in the revenue records, the appellants are also in possession and enjoyment of the land have sought to rely on the documents, which are annexed with the writ petition as Annexures-1 to 7 thereof. In that regard, it is contended that as far back as in the year 1965, the Industries Department had recognized the role of the appellants herein and in that light, the appellants were providing training to ladies in knitting and embroidery and for the said purpose, machines were also procured. Hence, he contends that in such situation when the appellants have continued to remain in possession and the revenue record also indicates the name of the appellants, the action taken by the respondents ought not to have been accepted by the learned Single Judge.