WP(C) 56/2006 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY The petitioners, 182 in numbers, seek the intervention of this C ourt in the exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the official communication No. RSG.120/98/Pt/24 dated 27/6/20 05 of the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue (Settlement) Depa rtment whereby allotment of PGR land measuring 1357 Bighas 0 Katha 0 Lessa cover ed by Dag No. 1 (Pt.), Village Mandira Reserve, Mouza Nagarbara in favour of 382 river eroded people/families as referred to therein for the purpose of homestea d was conveyed. The petitioners are aggrieved, as by the aforementioned communic ation, the earlier order No. RSG-71/77/17 dated 22/7/77 also to the same effect appears to have been modified which they perceive would be detrimental to their interest. I have heard Mr. J. Ahmed, learned Counsel for the petitioner, M r. J. Ali Ahmed, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 7 and Mr. H. Rahman, lea rned State Counsel for the official respondents. The pleaded version of the petitioners in short is that having b een rendered landless by the ravages of floods, the Additional Deputy Commission er, Kamrup, Guwahati, in the year 1974 allotted one Bigha of land each to 382 su ch distressed families vide his letter No. KARAP-5/264/73/84 dated 11/1/1974 at the aforementioned site. Subsequent thereto the Sub-Divisional Land Reform Commi ttee in its meeting held on 22/7/1976 decided to allot 4 bighas of land to each to such families who had by then taken possession of the land referred to in the letter dated 11/1/1974 of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup. The juris dictional Deputy Collector, Chaygaon Revenue Circle, was also informed of the sa id decision. Thereafter the Government in the Revenue (Settlement) Department by its letter N o. RSG.71/77/17 dated 22/7/1977 conveyed its approval for the apportionment of a plot of land measuring 6,635 Bighas at the aforementioned location for allotmen t to the 382 river eroded people @ 4 Bighas each per family in addition to one b igha of land per family already allotted to them. Thereby the Deputy Commissione r, Kamrup, Guwahati, was requested to submit a formal proposal for de-reservatio n of the land to facilitate issuance of appropriate allotment order at an early date. It was further directed that unauthorised occupation over the land may be cleared and further encroachment be prevented. According to the petitioners, they continued to occupy the land so allotted to t hem and in return thereof and without default paid the tauzi bahi revenue for th at. It was at that stage that by the impugned communication dated 27/6/2005 in m odification of the aforementioned order dated 22/7/1977, the allotment as referr ed to therein was made detailing the following:- (1) 3 (three) Bighas per family for agriculture purpose. (2) 1/2 (half) bigha per family for homestead. (3) 20 Bigha (Twenty bigha) for public institution like play ground/mosque/m arket/schools/raised /platform/iddgah. This communication required that the land allotted for specific purpose as menti oned ought to be utilised within three years therefrom. Apprehending that this d ecision had the potential of ousting them from the land in their possession, the petitioners approached this Court challenging the same. By order dated 1/2/2006 , this Court, as an interim measure, directed maintenance of status quo. This ar rangement was thereafter continued by the order dated 9/2/2006 of this Court. Th e state of affairs subsists as on date. The Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, in his affidavit while admitting the issuance o f the letters dated 11/1/1974 and 22/7/1977 referred to in the writ petition has mentioned about the one dated 2/6/1977 of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (undi vided) whereby a detailed report was submitted to the Government disclosing that the 382 river eroded families involved were delivered possession of land @ 1 Bi gha per family in January 1974. That the letter dated 22/7/1977 was issued there after has been admitted by the State respondents whereby the Government had appr oved the proposal for allotment of land @ 4 bighas per family in addition to the one bigha already delivered. The answering respondents, however, could not stat e with certainty as to whether the families then (at the time of filing the affi davit) occupying the land were the same as those which were initially sought to be rehabilitated as the original list empanelling the same was not available. It was stated, however, that the impugned communication dated 27/6/2005 had been i ssued based on reports dated 6/1/2005 and 20/5/2005 respectively by the then Dep uty Commissioner, Kamrup and the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Guwahati. That the land measuring 1357 bighas was subsequently dereserved and that the Addition al Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, by his letter dated 29/12/2005 had directed the Circle Officer, Nagarbera, to formally handover the same to the 382 families has been averred. It has been added as well that no further action on the basis the reof has been taken in view of the pendency of the present proceeding. The respondent No. 7 in his counter with reference to the letters/communications relied upon by the petitioners in support of their claim of being allotted the land in question has asserted against the same in absence of any official record s to substantiate it. While denying the allegation levelled by the petitioner th at outsiders were seeking to intermeddle with the possession of their land with the end view of ousting them therefrom, the respondent No. 7 has referred to dis putes between the parties over the said issue resulting in a series of litigatio n. He has referred to a list dated 29/12/2001 prepared by the Circle Officer, Na garbera Revenue Circle claimed to be a genuine panel of the persons/families to whom in fact the possession of the land had been handed over at the first instan ce. According to the answering respondent, the impugned communication dated 27/0 6/2005 is valid and that the list of families/persons contemplated thereby ought to be allowed to be acted upon. Pursuant to the order dated 27/3/2008 of this Court directing the official respo ndents to produce the list of 382 river eroded families referred to in the lette rs dated 11/1/1974 and 26/7/2005 referred to above, the Additional Deputy Commis sioner, Guwahati, caused production of the list dated 29/10/2001 submitted by th e Circle Officer, Nagarbera Revenue Circle, on 9/4/2008. Mr. Ahmed, learned Counsel for the petitioners while relying on a list of 382 fa milies produced in course of the arguments from their (petitioners) custody has submitted that when compared to the one dated 29/10/2001 of the Circle Officer, Nagarbera, it is apparent that the names of 58 persons appearing in his list has been removed and replaced by equal number of persons who are infact not in poss ession of the land. According to him, by the impugned communication dated 26/7/2 005, the list dated 29/10/2001 is sought to be acted upon to the prejudice of th ese 58 persons who are in occupation of the land on the basis of the process of rehabilitation started in the year 1974. The learned State Counsel without offering any comment on the list produced on b ehalf of the petitioners has argued that as the panel prepared by the Circle Off icer, Nagarbera Revenue Circle, is on the basis of on the spot survey, there is no reason as to why the same ought not to be regarded as authentic and that ther efore the challenge to the impugned letter dated 22/6/2005 ought to be negated i n limine. Mr. J. Ali Ahmed, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 7 while generally endor sing the arguments advanced on behalf of the official respondents has endeavoure d to contend that the two lists substantially are the same with marginal differe nces in view of death and movement of some of the occupants from the site in que stion and that having regard to the present state of occupation of the said land by river eroded persons, no interference with the impugned decision is called f or. The rival pleadings and the documents annexed thereto demonstrate that as early as on 11/1/1974, having regard to the hapless plight of the 382 river eroded fam ilies, the Government of Assam had intended to rehabilitate them at the site inv olved. These families were at the first instance delivered possession of the res pective plots identified for them and the formal process for allotment thereof w as decided to be initiated. The Government’s approval for apportionment of the l and in their favour following completion of the process of formal dereservation is evident from the letter dated 22/7/77. The letter dated 27/6/2005 impugned in the instant proceeding also reiterates the decision for allotment of land for r ehabilitation of the 382 river eroded persons/families by allotting PGR land mea suring 1357 bighas covered by Dag No. 1(Pt.) village Mandira reserve, Mouza Naga rbera. The modification of the letter dated 22/7/1977 appears to be vis-à-vis th e apportionment of the plots thus decided to be allotted to the individuals/fami lies and per se does not indicate reversal of the decision of rehabilitation of the said families on principle. In other words, the impugned letter dated 26/5/2 005 does not mark a departure in the stand of the official respondents on the re habilitation of the 382 persons/families rendered landless by river erosion. Evidently meanwhile more than three decades have elapsed and it is likely that t he persons/families who/which had at the first instance been allowed to occupy t he land involved, as on today are not wholly the same. Various factors like deat h, abandonment of the land etc. thus might have contributed to the variance in t he two lists as is sought to be pointed out by the petitioners. It is submitted at the Bar that on the death of some occupants of the land, their successors in interest have stepped thereto and are presently in occupation. This as well may be one of the reasons for the difference in the two lists. While in abs ence of any judicially manageable standard it is impracticable for this Court to ascertain with precision the correctness of either of these lists vis-à-vis the present occupancy, having regard to the possible factors as indicated hereinabo ve, the existence of two lists with difference in the opinion of this Court does not per se signify that the letter dated 26/6/2005 spells ouster of the petitio ners from the land, if in their occupation. The above notwithstanding, having regard to the overwhelming purpose for which t he land is sought to be allotted to the 382 persons/families i.e. to provide the ir rehabilitation, it is considered appropriate in view of the rival contentions , that a fresh exercise be caused to be undertaken by the Deputy Commissioner, K amrup (Rural), by duly notifying the parties so as to ascertain without any mann er of doubt the identity of the persons/families in occupation of the site propo sed to be awarded to them for the aforementioned purpose. As both the parties ha ve claimed, in course of the arguments, to be in possession of the land, the ord er of status quo would continue till the exercise as ordered is completed. As th e subsistence of the dispute has the potential of generating confrontative orien tations, the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Rural), would ensure that the process as required to be undertaken in terms of the order is completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt thereof. The aforementioned authority woul d endeavour to his best to meet the deadline of time fixed by this Court. The petition stands disposed in the above terms. No costs.