HARIPADA DEY Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Sec. 147(b), Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, against an order of the learned Deputy Commissioner, Sibsagar, dated 1-4-1919, by which he ordered the appellants to vacate the land in question within 30 days.

(2.) Mr. Sen for the appellants has contended that Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules framed under the Regulation has no application, beoause the land in question had been settled with one Hazarimal Singh and that the appellants acquired their right, title and interest by purchase from Hazarimal or his representatives. Mr. Sen's contention might have had force if the annual patta in this case granted to Hazarimal had not been cancelled by Government. It is not disputed that the patta granted to Hazarimal has been cancelled. The position then is that the land involved is one over which no person has acquired red the rights of a proprietor, land-holder or settlement-holder. Rule 18(1) of the Settlement Rules framed under the Regulation, therefore, clearly applies.

(3.) Mr. Sen, however, contends that assuming that Rule 18(1) applies, the appellants had been served with notice under Rule 18(2). Mr. Barman for the Government rightly concedes that the notice in this case should have been served under Rule 18(1), and not under Rule 18(2) I agree with Mr. Barman that this is not a technical error. The issue of notice under Rule 18(2) has no practical bearing on the question involved.