Sri Plaban Das vs State Of Assam And Ors.

Heard Mr. D.C.C. Phukan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.S. Deka, learned Standing counsel, Revenue

Department, appearing for respondent No. 1 as well as Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned State counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

The case of the petitioner is that he is in possession of a plot of Government land measuring 1 Bigha, covered by Dag No. 1 of Revenue Village-

Panikhaiti, Mouza-Panbari, since the year 1983.

However, it must be pointed out at the very beginning that the representation dated11.04.2017 submitted by the petitioner to the Circle Officer,

Chandrapur Revenue Circle, goes to show that the petitioner has referred the name of the village as “Khankar Village†and not “Panikhaitiâ€.

In paragraph 6 of the writ petition also, Dag No. 1 is stated to be in Khankar Revenue Village.

Mr. Deka submits that there is no village called “Panikhaiti†and that Dag No. 1 is inKhankar Village as would be demonstrated by the

impugned order dated 22.05.2018.

Further case of the petitioner is that the aforesaid Dag No. 1 is abutted on the Southern side by a plot of land measuring 6 Bighas 1 Katha and 2

Lechas, covered by Patta No. 23 of Revenue Village-Khankar, Mouza-Panbari, owned by one Sri Dilip Kumar Bhattacharya and the said Dilip

Bhattacharya had executed a Special Power of Attorney on 16.12.2015 authorizing the petitioner to look after, manage and protect the aforesaid plot

of land. The petitioner had set up a small scale industry over the plot of land for manufacturing Steel Fabrication, Biogas Holder, Water Drum, etc.

On 06.04.2015, a notice was issued by the Circle Officer, Chandrapur Revenue Circle,directing the petitioner to vacate the Government land. The

petitioner approached this court challenging the notice dated 06.04.2015 in WP(C) 2390/2015. The writ petition was disposed of by an order dated

05.05.2015 (Annexure-8) directing the petitioner to approach the authority which had issued the impugned eviction notice dated 06.04.2015 with

appropriate representation within ten days, and observing that till the disposal of the petitioner’s representation, the parties will maintain status quo.

The petitioner approached this court again by filing a writ petition, being WP(C)1434/2017, with the grievance that though the petitioner’s

representation, submitted in pursuance to the order dated 05.05.2015, passed in WP(C) 2390/2015 was pending consideration, an officer from the

office of the Circle Officer, Chandrapur Revenue Circle, visited the business premises of the petitioner on 03.03.2017 and informed him that an

eviction operation would be carried out within a short period without any further notice.

WP(C) 1434/2017 was disposed of by an order dated 10.03.2017.

A perusal of the order dated 10.03.2017 goes to show that submission was advancedby the learned counsel for the petitioner that an application for

settlement of the land in question had been made by the petitioner and the same was under process. The writ petition was disposed of directing the

respondent No. 3 therein, namely, Circle Officer, Chandrapur Revenue Circle, to comply with the earlier order of the court dated 05.05.2015, passed

in WP(C) 2390/2015, and to pass appropriate order. Liberty was also granted to the petitioner to file a fresh representation and, till the representation

was considered by the Circle Officer, status quo was directed to be maintained in respect of the land in question.

A notice dated 24.03.2017 was issued to the petitioner by the Circle Officer,Chandrapur Revenue Circle, directing him to appear with all relevant

documents in connection with the order dated 10.03.2017 passed in WP(C) 1434/2017. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 22.05.2018 was passed

by the Circle Officer, Chandrapur Revenue Circle, rejecting the petition/representation filed by the petitioner. The relevant portion of the impugned

order reads as follows:

 “ ORDER

Perused the petition filed by Sri Plaban Das (petition dtd. 10.04.2017). Also, perused the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court order dated 10.03.2017.

On perusal of the petition submitted by the petitioner it is observed that he has stated in his petition that a plot of Govt. land measuring 1 (one) Bigha

covered by Dag No. 1 at village: Khankar under Mouza: Panbari, is in continuous possession of Sri Plaban Das since last 30 years and that he has

been paying the Panchayat Tax also to the local authority.

However, on field verification alongwith the LR staff concerned it has been observed that Sri Plaban Das has been encroaching a plot of Govt. land

(reserved for VGR) measuring 3 (three) Bigha, 3 (three) Katha 15 (fifteen) Lecha covered by Dag No. 1 at village: Khankar under Mouza: Panbari

by constructing various unauthorized structures.

The representation filed by Sri Plaban Das is rejected since I am of the opinion that such encroachment have reduced the area which were reserved

in the interest of public and ecological balance.

Given under my hand and seal on the 22nd Day of May, 2018.â€​

A perusal of the said order goes to show that the petitioner had encroachedGovernment land reserved for Village Grazing Reserve (VGR),

measuring 3 Bigha 3 Katha 15 Lecha at village Khankar. Village grazing grounds are notified under Rules for the Allotment of Grazing Grounds

framed under the Settlement Rules, which in turn, is framed under Assam Land And Revenue Regulation, 1886. Village grazing grounds are meant to

be used as a grazing ground free of charge by persons other than professional graziers, who can use the same only in exceptional circumstances. In

paragraph 18 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that he is apprehending eviction from land measuring 1 Bigha, covered by Dag No. 1. There

is no averment in the writ petition that he is not in possession of 3 Bigha 3 Katha 15 Lecha of Government land. There is also no averment in the writ

petition contesting the fact that Dag No. 1 of Khankar village, under Panbari Mouza is VGR land, as stated in the impugned order.

In Jagpal Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2011) 11 SCC 396, the Supreme Court had the occasion to say, at paragraph 4 of the judgement,

as follows:

“4. What we have witnessed since Independence, however, is that in large parts of the country this common village land has been grabbed by

unscrupulous persons using muscle power, money power or political clout, and in many States now there is not an inch of such land left for the

common use of the people of the village, though it may exist on paper…………..â€​

It was further observed at paragraph 23 as follows:

“23. Before parting with this case we give directions to all the State Governments in the country that they should prepare schemes for eviction of

illegal/unauthorized occupants of Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat/Poramboke/ Shamlat land and these must be restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram

Panchayat for the common use of villagers of the village…………….. Long duration of such illegal occupation or huge expenditure in making

constructions thereon or political connections must not be treated as a justification for condoning this illegal act or for regularizing the illegal

possession. Regularization should only be permitted in exceptional cases where lease has been granted under some Government notification to landless

labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or where there is already a school, dispensary or other public utility on the land.â€​

Having regard to the above pronouncement of the Supreme Court, it is evident that VGR land cannot be settled with a private individual for setting

up of industry. There being no infirmity, I see no good ground to entertain this petition and, accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No cost.