OMPRAKASH AGARWALLA Vs. THE SUB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - An agreement was entered into sometime in 1973 between the Manager Dheodam Tea Estate and the petitioner by which Pabhajan Tea Company allowed 100 acres of land to be used by the petitioner to grow citronella grass. By another agreement in 1974 the garden authority allowed a further area of 40 acres of land to be used for the aforesaid purpose. Subsequently, the aforesaid land came to be vested in the Government by virtue of the provisions contained in the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1956, hereinafter the Act. This vesting was sometime in Oct., 1976 The entire land was thereafter allotted by the Government to Assam Small Scale Industries Development Corporation in Nov., 1976. It is the case of the respondents that advance possession of the land was also given to the aforesaid Corporation where after there was encroachment and it is because of this that the provisions of Rules 18(2) and 18(3) of the Settlement Rules were invoked against the petitioner to obtain possession of the land. It is this eviction proceeding which has been assailed in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) The short submission of Shri Baruah is that even if the land in question was an excess land within the meaning of the Act, the petitioner was entitled to settlement of the same in view of what has been laid down in section 16 of the Act read with Rule 16 of the Rules made under the Act. At this stage we may point out that though the case of the petitioner -was that there were 12 other persons with him to take settlement of the land we are not concerned with the 12 others as they are not before us. We would therefore, confine our attention with the interest of the petitioner alone which extends to 50 bighas .in view of the provisions in the Act inasmuch as it is apparent that it the petitioner was occupying the land as tenant he cannot hold land beyond 50 bighas.

(3.) The crucial question is whether wet can regard the petitioner as a tenant under the it-a garden. Shri Chaliha has drawn our attention in this connection to the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the tea garden wherein the petitioner has been described as contractor. Sim Baruah contends that the description or the petitioner as contractor may not be regarded as clinching inasmuch as if the agreement is read in lull it would appear that the petitioner satisfies the definition of tenant as given in section 3(o) of the Act which reads as below :