GUWAHATI, India, Nov. 12 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Oct. 12:

1. Heard Shri B. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri BJ Talukdar, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam assisted by Shri PK Medhi, learned counsel and Shri R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department.

2. Considering the subject matter involved and the fact that this writ petition is pending since the year 2023, the same is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

3. As per the facts projected, the petitioners are in the business of small tea gardens in the district of Jorhat and are in occupation of certain lands on which such cultivation is being done. They had approached this Court by filing the WP(C)/5244/1999 in which an order was passed by this Court on 11.10.1999 directing the Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat and the Secretary of Revenue Department to consider the case of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders. As per the petitioners, no such orders were passed for which they had moved a second writ petition being WP(C)/ 4710/2021 with a prayer for settlement of the land under their possession. This Court vide an order dated 27.04.2022 had directed the petitioners to file fresh representations in terms of the earlier order dated 11.10.1999. The petitioners contend that though such representations were filed, due to some marginal delay, those have not been considered and there is a threat of their eviction.

4. Shri Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the direction passed by this Court on 11.10.1999 is yet to be complied with in its true sense as till now the representations of the petitioners have not been considered. He has also submitted that as per the second direction dated 27.04.2022, though fresh representations were made, the same have not been considered and rather the petitioners are sought to be evicted from the land under their possession. It is submitted that consideration of the petitioners' representation is a matter of right which the petitioners have been deprived of.

5. Per contra, Shri Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department has submitted that though there was a direction of this Court on 11.10.1999 directing the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioners, it appears that no representations were, in fact submitted by the petitioners and the petitioners took advantage of the situation. When some actions were taken by the respondent authorities for eviction, as the land in question is a VGR land, they have moved this Court with the second writ petition being WP(C)/4710/2021 in which a direction was issued to submit fresh representations and that direction was also not complied with by the petitioners.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=tuqye3PhFs%2BBDn75ghiOpDURXJNyGZmbJiCyftc9jzm1gX3vd9f91Q1Sb%2Ft8RJhO&caseno=WP(C)/6031/2023&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010230652023&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.