Prafulla Chandra Goswami on his death his legal heirs Smt. Gouri Prova Goswami and Others vs Natun Ashomia (P) LTD.

Manisana, J.—In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have challenged an order of the Deputy Commissioner Kamrup made on 19.7.82 in Case No. 82(Rs) of 1980 and the order of the Assam Board of Revenue passed 27.3.86 in Case No 198 RA (K) 82 affirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner on appeal.

The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows. The Government of Assam, in exercise of the power conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Assam State Acquisition of Land Belonging to Religious and Charitable Institution of Public Nature Act, 1959, for short "the Act", by a notification dated 1.3.67 published in the Assam Gazette of 8.3.67, declared that about 26262 Bighas of land belonging to Kamakhya temple shall stand transferred and vest in the State free from all encumbrances with effect from 15.4.67. It is not disputed that on the date of notification (1.3.67). the Petitioners were tenant of the Kamakhya temple in respect of 4B 3K 5L of the land under the notification. But, of 4B 3K 5L land measuring 1B 4K 5L was in occupation of the Respondent--1 Natun Ashomi (P) Ltd as a sub-tenant. After the acquisition, annual patta was issued to the Petitioners in respect of 4B 3K 5L of the land for 5 years from 67-71. Thereafter, a periodic patta No. 28 was issued to the Petitioners and they have been paying revenue. However, on the application made by the Respondent Natun Ashomia (P) Ltd. the Deputy Commissioner corrected the record of rights in respect of 1B 4K 5L and recorded the same in the name of the Respondent by order dated 19.7.82. On appeal by the Petitioners the Assam Board of Revenue dismissed the appeal (sic, on) 27.3.86 and affirmed the order. Hence this application.

Mr. N.M. Lahiri, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, has advanced the following submissions. First, the Act has been enacted to implement the policy of agrarian reforms. The object of the Act is to provide for acquisition of the agricultural lands and confer right on the tiller of the soil. Secondly, the impugned order amounts to cancellation of the patta. The Petitioners having been granted patta, it cannot be cancelled in colourable exercise of powers under Rules 115 and 116 of the Settlement Rules. Thirdly, the right of the (sic) cannot be taken away without payment of the compensation.

Shri A.S. Bhattacharjee, the learned Counsel for the Respondent 1, has, inter alia, submitted that the present case is covered by the decision of the Court reported as 1977 ALR 136 (DB) Rajendra Nath v. Jugeswar Talukdar. In that case, this Court has while interpreting the word ''raiyat'' employed u/s 15 of the Act in connection with the acquisition of about 145 Bighas agricultural land, held that the ''raiyat'' has direct relation with the Occupation of the land for cultivation and, u/s 15, only the raiyat who is in actual possession of the land is entitled to settlement, and not the Khatian holders. The present is a case with respect to non-agricultural land.

With regard to the first contention of Mr. Lahiri that the object of the Act is to provide for acquisition of the agricultural law and to confer right on the tillers of the soil, we are unable accept the contention. We approach the matter as follows.

u/s 3 of the Act, the state Government may, by notification in the official Gazette declare that all the right in law belonging to a religious or chartiable Institution of Public Nature for short "the Institution", shall vest in the state free from all encumbrances, with effect from the first day of the agricultural year next following the date of publication of such notification.

Section 4 of the Act provides that all right, title and interest in the land of the Institution with the sub-soil (including the right in mines, minerals, fisheries, tanks, well, forests, grazing, reserves, hats, bazars, roads and feries) shall cease and such land including such right shall vest absolutely in the state free from as encumbrances with effect from the date specified in the notifications.

The expression "land" occurring in the Act has not been defined. The word "land" is a general word having ordinary meaning The expression "land" is wide enough to include all lands, whether agricultural or not unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context. u/s 4, after the notification u/s 3 all the rights, title and interest in the land including the rights is mines, minerals, fisheries, tanks, well, forests, grazing reserves, hats, bazars, roads and feries shall cease. This part of Section 4 indicates that the word ''land'' includes all land and, therefore, there is nothing repugnant in the subject or context of the Act to conclude that the word ''land'' under the Act includes all land, whether agricultural or not. A similar argument was advanced in Jiban Chandra v. State of Assam AIR 1966 A & N 51. In that case, while challenging vires of the Act, a Division Bench of this Court has rejected the contention.

Apart from the above reasons, u/s 2(c) of the Act, "encumbrance" in relation to any land under this Act does not include the right of a raiyat or agricultural or non agricultural tenant", (emphases supplied) Section 2(c) indicates that the right of a raiyat or, of an agricultural tenant, or of a non agricultural tenant, is protected, although the land acquired is free from all encumbrances under Sections 3 and 4.

The word ''raiyat'' has not been defined in the Act. But, "tenant" has been defined u/s 2(j) of the Act to mean a person who holds land under another person and is, or but for a special (sic) set would be, liable to pay rent for that land to that other person and includes a person who cultivates the land of another person on condition of delivering a share of the produce. (Emphasis supplied) Section 2(j) makes it clear that tenant includes agricultural tenant. Although the word ''raiyat'' is normally referable to the agricultural land or cultivating tenant, a raiyat is a tenant, and it would be a tenant u/s 2(j) by applying the rule of "noscitur a sociis". under the maxim of ''noscitur a sociis'', meaning of words may be indicated or controlled by those with which they are associated. Associated words take their meaning from one another under the doctrine of ''nositur a sociis'', a philosophy of which is that the meaning of a doubtful word may be ascertained by reference to the meaning of word associated with it and such doctrine is broader than the maxim "ejusdem generis", (see Words and Phrases, Vol. 28A). The above rule has been approved by the Supreme Court in Dr. Devendra M. Surti Vs. The State of Gujarat, As already stated, the right of a raiyat, or of a non agricultural tenant, has the case may be, is protected Under the Act. In Section 2(c), the expressions "raiyat or agricultural or non agricultural tenant" have been used. Associated words " agricultural tenant" and "non-agricultural tenant" show that raiyat is tenant or tenant includes raiyat and, therefore, raiyat is tenant within the meaning of Section 2 and if a raiyat in occupation refuse to take settlement his right would be forfeited u/s 16(3). For the reasons stated, we conclude that the word "land" occurring In the Act is wide enough to include all lands, whether agricultural or not.

As regards the second submission of Mr. Lahiri that the Petitioners having been granted the periodic patta, the patta cannot be cancelled. The answer depends on whom the settlement was to be granted.

Section 15 of the Act provides that subject to the limitation prescribed u/s 4 of the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1956 (Assam Act of 1957) where the land acquired under the Act is in occupation of a raiyat on the date of notification u/s 3, it shall be settled with him with the status of a and holder or a settlement holder, as the case maybe, considering the status of the raiyat or occupancy right, under the relevant agrarian laws mentioned therein.

u/s 16 of the Act, where the land acquired under the Act is not under the occupation of a raiyat on the date of notification u/s 3, it shall be at the disposal of the Stats Government for settlement with the categories of person, preference being given in order of narration in Clause (a), (b), (c) and (d). Section 16(3) provides that a tenant who is in occupation of any land acquired u/s 3 but docs not take settlement of such land, shall acquire no right, title and interest in such land and shall be liable to ejectment...".

u/s 15, if the land acquired is in possession of a raiyat on the date of notification u/s 3 it shall be settled with him. Section 16(1) provides for settlement where the land acquired under the Act is not under the occupation of a raiyat on the date of notification under the Act. u/s 16 (3), it is clear and evident that the non-agricultural tenant in occupation is to be offered for settlement of the lard in his occupation on the date of notification u/s 3.

After the acquisition of land under the Act, the land vests in the Government. Therefore, the Government has the power to settle the land to any person for any purpose but for Sections 15 and 16(c). Therefore, provisions under Sections 15 and 16 relates to preference. i.e. the persons mentioned in Sections 15 and 16 have the preferential right to, or claim for, settlement of the land with them. However, we are of the view that the previsions u/s 16 is not exhaustive.

Coming, back to the case on hand, a reading of section (c) clearly indicates that the land is to be settled to a non-agricultural tenant who is in possession of the land at the time of notification under the Act. In the case of a non-agricultural land. If a non-agricultural tenant is not in possession at the time of notification u/s 3 he cannot claim settlement as of right the land, may be settled with him or may not be settled with him. In that view of the master, the Petitioners were not entitled to claim the settlement as of right of the part of the land which has been recorded in the name of the Respondent as they were not in actual possession of it. Since the Petitioners could not claim the settlement as of right, the land other than the land occupied by them as ten-ants under Kamakhya Temple, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders relating to the settlement or the recording of the same of the Respondent-1 in respect of 1B 4K 5L.

In respect of the third contention of Mr. Lahiri that the right of the tenant cannot be taken away without payment of the compensation, the Act has not protected the rights of a tenant who is not in actual possession of the land. Where the Act has not provided for compensation we cannot say that the acquisition of land is illegal as the Act is one of the acts included in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution being entry 24. In that view of the matter, the contention of Mr. Lahiri cannot be accepted.

For the forgoing reasons, the petition is dismissed. No costs.