WP(C)/770/2024 of BADRI PRASAD GARODIA AND 5 ORS Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS on 16 June 2026

ORDER

Date : 17.06.2026

Heard Ms. S. Paul, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners. Ms. G. Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent No. 1; Mr. H. Sarma, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3; and Mr. J. Das, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent No. 4.

2. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the judgment and order dated 03.06.2023 passed by the learned Assam Board of Revenue, Guwahati in Case No. 26RA (TIN)/2018, whereby the order dated 06.09.2002 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Tinsukia in TRS Case No. 94/2002 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia for fresh disposal as per the applicable Laws and Rules.

3. This Court has duly perused the order dated 06.09.2002 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Tinsukia. In the opinion of this Court, the said order is totally misconceived inasmuch as merely because of the fact that the proprietor or landholder is not in possession of the land in question resort to Rule 116 of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 is not permissible.

4. In that regard, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the judgment of the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bhabani Shankar Bagaria Vs. State of Assam & Others reported in 2008 (4) GLR 134. The said view has subsequently been reiterated by this Court in various judgments, including in the case of M/S. Maud Tea and Seed Company Ltd. Vs. State of Assam & Others reported in 2025 (3) GLR 15.

5. Additionally, this Court takes note of the reasons assigned by the learned Assam Board of Revenue in the impugned judgment wherein the learned Assam Board of Revenue categorically held that the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Tinsukia had passed the order dated 06.09.2002 without serving notice upon the Respondent No. 4 herein, who was the Appellant before the learned Assam Board of Revenue.

It was also found that the applications filed by the Petitioners herein, who were Respondents in the proceedings before the learned Assam Board of Revenue, were defective. The learned Assam Board of Revenue, therefore, rightly set aside the order dated 06.09.2002 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Tinsukia in TRS Case No. 94/2002 and remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia for fresh disposal as per the applicable Laws and Rules.

6. Considering the above, this Court does not find any infirmity in the judgment and order dated 03.06.2023 passed in Case No. 26RA (TIN)/2018. Consequently, the instant writ petition, being meritless, stands dismissed.

7. Before parting with the records, this Court finds it pertinent to observe that although the learned Assam Board of Revenue has remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia for deciding afresh, the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia or the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia shall decide the matter afresh by taking into account the judgment of this Court in the case of Bhabani Shankar Bagaria (supra) and more particularly to paragraph No. 5 thereof, which is reproduced herein under: “5. A cursory glance at the provisions of Rule 116 reflects as if a Deputy Commissioner can strike out the name of any recorded proprietor, settlement- holder or land-holder or manager of an estate from the revenue records if it comes to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner that the person, whose name has been recorded in the General Register as proprietor, settlement-holder or manager of an estate is no longer in possession of any such interest in the estate. What is, however, of utmost importance to note is that the expression 'such interest in the estate' has been consciously used by the rule-makers in Rule 116. It is a settled principle of law that every word used in any statute, rules or regulations must be given its ordinary meaning unless the context indicates otherwise. The expression 'such interest in the estate', if construed property, would obviously mean that the mere fact that a person, who is the proprietor, settlement-holder or manager of an estate, is no longer in possession of such estate, the power, under Rule 116, to strike out the name of such a person from the revenue records cannot be resorted to. What is also necessary for the purpose of enabling a Deputy Commissioner to take recourse to Rule 116 and issue notice under the proviso to Rule 116 to the recorded proprietor, settlement-holder or manager is that such person, who is the proprietor, settlement-holder or manager of the estate, must be shown to have ceased too have interest in the land, which is no longer in possession of the estate. If Rule 116 is interpreted to mean that a lawful owner will lose his right over the land merely by an act of trespass by an encroacher, it would mean that if a person can manage, illegally and by dint of sheer muscle power, to trespass into a land, such a trespasser would be entitled to settlement of the land merely because of the fact that the recorded proprietor, settlement-holder or manager of the estate is not in possession of the estate or part thereof. Such an interpretation would lead to chaos and lawlessness. An interpretation of a provision, contained in an enactment or rule, which can lead to chaos and disorder in the society, must be eschewed by the Courts and the Courts shall favour that the interpretation, which would help maintain orderliness in the society, for, it is orderliness in the society, which the public interest demands and needs and not chaos and disorderliness. Viewed thus, it is clear that Rule 116 would be applicable only when a person, who is the proprietor, settlement- holder or manager of an estate, abandons his interest, as the proprietor, settlement-holder or manager, over such an estate or any part thereof.”

JUDGE Comparing Assistant