GUWAHATI, India, Sept. 12 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Aug. 12:

1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following relief: "Under the above facts and circumstances it is therefore prayed that Your Lordships would be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records, issue a rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a Writ in the nature of mandamus shall not be issued to direct the Respondents to settle the 'B' schedule land with the petitioner and on perusal of record and reply to show cause if any and after hearing the parties would be pleased to make the rule absolute by directing the Respondents to settle the 'B' schedule land with the petitioner. And or pass any other order(s) as Your lordships may deem fit and proper for the interest of justice.

Further it is prayed that pending disposal of this petition Respondents may be directed not to evict the petitioner from 'B' schedule land.

Alternatively it is prayed that Respondent no. 2 may be directed to dispose the settlement application dated 18/5/2023(ANNEXURE NO. 4) within a specified time by a speaking order and copy the said speaking order may be supplied to the petitioner and till passing of the said speaking order the Respondents may be directed not to evict the petitioner from 'B' schedule land."

2. As per the facts projected, there is a plot of land measuring 10 bigha, 1 katha, 15 lechas in village Kathalbari in the district of Kokrajhar and out of said plot, an area of 2 bighas was in the occupation of the grandfather of the petitioner, since a long period of time. It is projected that after the death of the grandfather, the father of the petitioner came in possession and after his death, the petitioner is in possession of the said plot of land.

3. The Circle Officer, Bagribari Revenue Circle had issued a notice dated 09.05.2023 to the petitioner, requiring him to appear before him or otherwise he would be evicted. It is contended that though the petitioner had appeared, no hearing had taken place and accordingly, the petitioner had submitted an application dated 18.05.2023 for settlement of the B- Schedule land. It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid application is pending and no order has been passed.

4. I have heard Shri M.A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Ms. R.B. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, BTC as well as Ms. M. Barman, learned State Counsel and Ms. G. Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department.

5. Ms. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, BTC, has also submitted that the respondent no. 5 has filed an affidavit-in-opposition on 13.02.2025.

6. Shri Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is the District Commissioner who is the competent authority to take a decision on the application for settlement which has not been done. He has emphasized that the possession of the land is with the petitioner since the days of his grandfather and therefore consideration is required to be made in accordance with law. He has also submitted that such consideration has to be fairly made and there cannot be any discrimination.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=tuqye3PhFs%2BBDn75ghiOpEPoTvWVCAsWUr6Ucfwsb%2FhOEj4S%2FeF8B06pFgHKSLiK&caseno=WP(C)/3785/2023&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010132192023&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.