Difference between revisions of "State Of Assam & Ors vs Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma & Ors on 27 November, 2014"

From Advocatespedia, ASSN: 138241
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "Facts of the Case: Late Bhabadeb Sarma, father of the respondents, was recorded as a Pattadar of a plot of land measuring 73.26 Ares equivalent to 1 Bigha, 4 Kathas and 16 Lac...")
 
(No difference)

Latest revision as of 15:22, 1 July 2020

Facts of the Case: Late Bhabadeb Sarma, father of the respondents, was recorded as a Pattadar of a plot of land measuring 73.26 Ares equivalent to 1 Bigha, 4 Kathas and 16 Lachas, covered by K.P. Patta No.493 (old)/594 (new) in Dag No.1008(old) of Sahar Ulubari, in Mouza Ulubari, Guwahati. With the adoption of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 by the State of Assam, the said Shri Bhabadev Sarma submitted returns under Section 6 of the said Act on 19th October, 1976. In Urban Land Ceiling Case No.343 of 1976 initiated by the District Collector against the said Shri Sarma, a draft statement under Section 8(3) was served upon the owner in regard to the land aforementioned which was, according to the draft statement, beyond the ceiling limit of 2000 sq. meters permissible under the Act. Upon consideration of the objections raised by the owner to the said draft statement, a final statement under Section 9 was prepared and published on 3rd September, 1982 declaring an area measuring 7981.48 Sq. meters to be in excess of the permissible limit. A notification dated 16th May, 1984 under Section 10(1) followed, declaring the vacant land aforementioned to be in excess of the ceiling limit. In 1984, the owner appeared to have sold a major portion of the land in question to Mr. Kamala Kanta Ozah and five others in terms of different instruments of sale executed in their favour. A notification was published in 1987 and the land in question was declared Ceiling Surplus Government Land. The appellant's case is that possession of the entire surplus land was taken over by the Revenue Authority on 7th December, 1992. This did not deter Kamala Kanta Ozah and others who had purchased the land either from filing an appeal against the order of vesting or challenging the proceedings in Writ Petition filed before the High Court. Both these attempts made by the purchasers of the land failed with the dismissal of the appeal by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of Revenue and the dismissal of Writ Petition by the High Court in terms of order dated 21st May, 2002. The High Court, it is pertinent to mention, not only upheld the order passed by the Collector-cum-Competent Authority but also the allotment of a substantial portion of the land in favour of 8 different families eligible for such allotment. The Writ Appeal filed by Kamala Kanta Ozah and others against the order passed by the Single Judge also came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by an order dated 20th December, 2002. Special leave petition filed against the said order too failed and was dismissed by this Court on 8th August, 2003.

Issue:

If the Order or the Competent Authority was right and if the High Court did the right decision is concurring with the judgement?


Judgement: The Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the view that the High Court did not appear to have a viable solution and it did not act as it should’ve. The Court held that the disputed land stands in favour of the allottees. It also stated that the offer of Shri Goswamy does not appear to be a feasible solution at that stage when the allotments made were not in question nor were the allottees impleaded as respondents. Hence, the appeals succeeded and were thereby allowed. The Order of the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside and that passed by the Single Bench of that Court affirmed.