AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. B Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. BJ Talukdar, learned standing counsel for the Revenue Department
appearing for the respondent Nos. 1,2,3 and 4.
The petitioner a private limited company is aggrieved by an order dated 03.10.2020 by which the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M)
directed the Circle Officer, Sonapur Revenue Circle to evict the unauthorized encroachment from the Myadi Patta land in the light of invoking Section
165 (3) of Chapter X of Assam Land Revenue Regulation. It is submitted by Mr. Chakraborty that having come to know about the said order dated
03.10.2020 the present petitioner company filed a representation before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati which as per
the contention of Mr. Chakraborty is yet to be disposed of. From the contents of the said representation, it is found that the actual owner of the land
which is the subject matter of the said order dated 03.10.2020, the respondent No. 7 one Sri Raju Swargiary is not the executant of the registered sale
deed on the basis of which the petitioner company is claiming its right of possession. Mere signing as a confirmatory party by the actual owner of the
land in a sale deed executed by the persons other than having right, title and interest of land cannot regularize a sale transaction thereby transferring
the title from the actual owner to the purchaser in such a case.
Be that as it may as the representation is specific in regard to the issue of possession over the land measuring 3 Bighas covered by Dag No. 55 of KP
Patta No. 4 of revenue village Byarni under Sonapur Mouza, to that limited extent the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati can
examine the possession of the petitioner after going through the representation filed by the petitioner company in case No. KRS 47/2020 on
21.10.2020. Mr. B J Talukdar, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate though supported the observation of this court regarding non
devolution of title to the petitioner company however as the issue is in respect of the possession he expresses his view that this writ petition may be
disposed of at this motion stage with an appropriate direction to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) for disposal of the said
representation.
In view of the aforesaid submission of Mr. Talukdar and upon consideration of the present situation vis-Ã -vis order dated 15.05.2021 passed in PIL
(Suo Moto)/3/2021 by this court I dispose of this writ petition at this motion stage as consented to by the learned counsel with the direction to the
Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) to dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner in case No. KRS 47/2020 on 21.10.2020.
However, it is made clear that on the strength of this order the devolution of the title to the petitioner cannot stand rectified overcoming the
deficiencies already observed hereinabove. Till the disposal of the representation dated 21.10.2020, status quo in respect of the possession of the said
land shall be maintained by the parties. An endeavour for disposal of the representation shall be made within an outer limit of 30 days from the date of
receipt of the copy of this order by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M).