WP(C) 4972/2006 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral) The petitioner No.1, which is a Society registered under the pro visions of Societies Registration Act and the petitioner No.2, who is the Genera l Secretary of the petitioner No.1, by the present petition have challenged the communications dated 1st October, 2003 and 18th October, 2003 issued by the Fore st Beat Office, Sila Forest Beat and Divisional Forest Officer, North Kamrup Div ision, Rangia, respectively, to one Sri Kisorilal Singh, the contractor engaged by the petitioners and to the Treasurer of the petitioner No.1 Society, requesti ng them not to carry out any non forestry activity inside the boundary of Silapa thar reserved forest without the prior approval from the concerned authority, as they were found clearing the portion of the reserved forest land and cutting ea rth to set up a historical garden. The facts relevant for the purpose of dispo sal of the present writ petition may be noticed as under:- The Government of Assam in Revenue (Settlement) Department decid ed to allot 50 Bighas of ceiling surplus land covered by Dag No.17 of Village- A giathuri under Sila Sundari Ghopa Mouza of North Guwahati Revenue Circle in favo ur of the petitioner No.1 for construction of the National Institute of Art Hist ory on condition that the land would be reverted to the Government to the Revenu e Department if it is not utilized within 3 (three) years for the purpose for wh ich such allotment is made. The said decision of the Government was communicate d to the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup vide communication dated 8th December, 1999 . The possession of the land was handed over to the petitioner No.1 Society on 5th April, 2000 by the Circle Officer, North Guwahati Revenue Circle. The Gover nment of India, Ministry of Tourism and Culture, Department of Culture also sanc tioned the grant of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs) to the petitioner No.1 Society for construction of the building over the land allotted by the Governme nt of Assam and the first installment of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Thousands) was directed to be released vide communication dated 10th January, 20 02. According to the petitioners, on receipt of the said amount, when they enga ged the Contractor, namely Sri Kisorilal Singh, for clearing of the jungle and t o make the said land suitable for construction, the Forest Beat Officer, Sila is sued the impugned communication dated 1st October, 2003 requiring him not to cle ar any jungle claiming that the part of the land falls within the boundary of re served forest. The Divisional Forest Officer, North Kamrup Division thereafter, issued another communication dated 18th October, 2003, which is also impugned i n the present writ proceeding, to the Treasurer of the petitioner No.1 Society r equesting him not to undertake any non forestry activity within the Silapathar r eserved forest basically contending that the portion where such non forestry act ivities being carried out falls within the Silapathar reserved forest. It is al so the case of the petitioners that though they approached the Deputy Commission er, Kamrup for demarcation of the boundary after making necessary survey, nothin g has been done by the Deputy Commissioner, which necessitated filing of the pre sent writ proceeding. [2] I have heard Mrs. K. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioners a nd Mr. J. Handique, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondents. [3] It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the p etitioners that since the aforesaid land measuring 50 Bighas has been allotted b y the Government of Assam for establishment of National Institute of Art History and the Government of India has also sanctioned fund for construction of the bu ilding, the Revenue authority has to demarcate the land, there being an allegati on of encroachment of the reserved forest land levelled by the Divisional Forest Officer, so that the land can be utilized by the petitioners for the purpose fo r which it has been allotted so also the fund made available by the Government o f India. The learned counsel submits that because of the inaction on the part o f the revenue authority, the petitioners are not being able to utilize the land for which it has been allotted and also the fund allotted by the Government of I ndia for that purpose. [4] Though the petitioners have challenged the aforesaid communicati ons dated 1st October, 2003 and 18th October, 2003, Mrs. Deka, learned counsel s ubmits that direction may be issued to the district revenue authority, namely, t he Deputy Commissioner, to cause survey of the land allotted to the petitioners by the Government vide communication dated 8th December, 1999 and to demarcate t he same at an early date, so that the land can be utilized for the purpose for w hich it has been allotted. [5] Mr. Handique, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent s placing reliance on the affidavits-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos.4 and 7, namely the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M), Guwahati and the Divisional Forest Officer, North Kamrup Division, respectively, has submitted that it is a fact that 50 Bighas of land covered by Dag No.17 of village- Agiathuri, Mouza- S ila Sundari Ghopa Mouza under North Guwahati Circle has been allotted to the pet itioners and though the possession of the said land was handed over on 5th April , 2000, a dispute arose relating to the portion of the land as the Forest Depart ment claims that the petitioners are occupying the part of the reserved forest l and, for which a survey was conducted by the Joint Direct of Survey and the area was demarcated. According to the learned State Counsel, since such an exercise has already been carried out, no further exercise relating to the survey of the land needs to be carried out. [6] This Court in view of such stand taken by the Deputy Commissione r in the affidavit-in-opposition filed, vide order dated 23rd August, 2011 direc ted the learned State Counsel to produce the relevant records of survey conducte d by the Joint Director of Survey, which, however, could not be produced by the learned State Counsel today. The Deputy Commissioner also though in the affidav it-in-opposition has stated that such a survey has already been conducted and th e land has been demarcated, the report of the said survey has neither been annex ed to the affidavit-in-opposition filed nor produced before this Court. The pet itioners have also disputed carrying out such survey in their presence. [7] Since the Forest Department has raised a dispute contending that part of the land allotted to the petitioner No.1 falls within the boundary of S ilapathar reserved forest, the same needs to be verified by making necessary sur vey by the revenue authority, without, which it is not possible to record any fi nding as to whether the part of the land allotted to the petitioners falls withi n the reserved forest. It also appears that it is not the case of the Forest De partment that the entire land of 50 Bighas falls within the forest reserved but part of it only, which, however, according to the petitioners, is outside the re served forest land. [8] That being the position, the present petition is disposed of dir ecting the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Rural), within whose jurisdiction the la nd now falls, to cause survey of the land allotted to the petitioners measuring 50 Bighas covered by Dag No.17 of Agiathuri village under Sila Sundari Ghopa Mou za in North Guwahati Revenue Circle and to demarcate the same. Such survey shal l be conducted in presence of the Forest Department as well as the representativ e of the petitioner No.1. In the event in such survey, it is found that if whol e or any portion of the land allotted to the petitioners falls within the bounda ry of the forest reserved, necessary order prohibiting any non forestry activity over such portion of the land shall be passed and in that case, the authority m ay consider allotment of the equivalent portion of adjacent land, if available, in favour of the petitioner No.1. However, in the event, the entire land is fou nd to be outside the boundary of forest reserve, the petitioners shall be permit ted to carry out the construction work subject to obtaining necessary permission , if required. It is also open to the petitioners to carry out the construction work subject to the permission, if required, over the portion of the allotted l and in respect of which there is no dispute. The said exercise of survey and de marcation shall be carried out within 2 (two) months from today with due notice to the petitioner No.1 and the Divisional Forest Officer, North Kamrup Division, Rangia. [9] The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. [10] A copy of this judgment and order be furnished to Mr. Handique, learned State Counsel.