THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/986/2017
LALIT PEGU and 6 ORS.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM and 2 ORS.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.M DAS
Advocate for the Respondent :
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
ORDER
25.11.2021
Heard Mr. L. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioners; Ms. S. Sarma, learned Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and Mr. P.S. Deka, learned Government Advocate for the respondent no. 1.
2. The writ petitioners claim to be persons affected by erosion and who were originally residents of Majuli. Because of erosion they were compelled to shift to occupations and have been residing in No. 1 Chowdung Gaon under Charaibahi Mouza within Jorhat West revenue Circle. The petitioners and their families have been residing in the said area for more than last 20 years but they have been denied permanent settlement in spite of applications made. The grievance of the petitioners are that similarly situated persons within the vicinity who were erosion affected have already been settled in the area on the basis of applications made by them and proposals forwarded by the Revenue Authorities.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners refers to a communication dated 5th September, 2014 (Annexure-9, Page-28) issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat to the Addl. Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue & Disaster Management Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6. The said communication, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners is in respect of the settlement sought for by the petitioners and other similar situated persons. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the land presently where the petitioners are residing is about 37 Bighas and is covered by Dag No. 757 of No. 1 Chawdung Gaon, Charaibahi Mouza under Jorhat West Revenue Circle, Jorhat. It is revealed from the said communication that the area is reserved as Village Grazing Reserve Land (VGR) and there were some portions of the said VGR land before settled with other similarly situated persons by de- reserving the same. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners having been residing in the same village for the last 20 years also deserve similar treatment and their applications having not been appended to, the present writ petition has been filed seeking appropriate orders from this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 contested the matter by filing an affidavit-in-opposition.
5. A bare perusal of the affidavit reveals that proposals have been sent to the Government for settlement of flood and erosion affected families like the petitioners. It is admitted by the Government that the petitioners have been residing on the said land for about 20 years and have been fine for encroachment which they have already paid for the last 20 years.
6. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and having perused the pleadings on record, it is seen that there is no dispute that the petitioners are erosion and flood affected families. The Government also does not dispute the fact that they are uprooted from the place of Majuli because of flood and that they settled in No. 1 Chawdung Gaon, Charaibahi Mouza under Jorhat West Revenue Circle. However, what is also seen is that for other similarly situated persons like the petitioners, a part of VGR land covered by Dag No. 757 of No. 1 Chawdung Gaon, Charaibahi Mouza have been de-reserved by the Government for settlement of the flood and erosion affected families. This, however, is the conflict with the law of the Apex Court laid down in Jagpal Singh and Ors Vs. State of Punjab and Ors reported in (2011) 11 SCC 396. The State Authorities are also aware of the fact as the same is reflected in the communication dated 05.09.2014 (Annexure-9, Page-28). But what cannot be denied is that the petitioners are persons who are victims by erosion and flood and are compulsorily uprooted from their original homestead in Majuli and were compelled to re-settle in No. 1 Chawdung Gaon, Charaibahi Mouza under Jorhat West Revenue Circle. It is also not disputed by the respondents that they have been residing there for last 20 years and the authorities concerned have also consistently imposed fine on the petitioners for encroachment for the past 20 years.
7. Considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in Jagpal Singh (Supra), this Court declines to accept the prayer of the petitioners that their prayer for settlement in the VGR land be considered as has been done in the cases of other similarly situated persons. However, this Court cannot also ignore the fact, not disputed by the Government, that the petitioners were compelled to be uprooted from their original homestead in Majuli because of erosion of flood and have been residing in No. 1 Chawdung Gaon, Charaibahi Mouza under Jorhat West Revenue Circle.
8. This Court is of the view that ends of justice will be served if the writ petition is disposed of with a specific direction to the respondent No. 2, Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat to make necessary enquiries and verification into the matter and pass appropriate orders on their proposals for settlement in a suitable area as permitted under the law. The Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat will cause proper enquiry be made to verify if suitable land is available within the vicinity of the land where the petitioners are presently residing, which can be considered for settlement in favour of the petitioner in terms of the provisions of law.
9. Under the circumstances, it is directed that the Revenue Authority, Jorhat including the Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat will forthwith and submits take necessary steps for identification of suitable land on which the petitioners can be settled permanently in terms of the above and pass appropriate orders thereon.
10. The entire exercise directed to be completed within a period of four months from today.
11. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment