In companypliance of the said order, the Deputy Commissioner raised a demand KRM 28/96/16 dated 15.02.1999 for Rs.1092/ towards land revenue and Rs.273/ towards local tax from the appellants in relation to the land in question.
435, 437, 376, 433, 434, 438, 439, 358, 361, 1348, 343 and 836 bearing patta Nos.
In this way, the appellants got around 19 Bighas of land and also became entitled to receive the companypensation amount deposited by the IOC whereas the IOC was allowed to retain the allotted land in lieu of companypensation paid by them for such land.
3/13 of 1976 77 for recovery of Rs.
Their names were also duly entered in the revenue records as recorded land holders as defined in Section 3 i of the Regulation, all through.
The Board, by order dated 23.02.1998, allowed the appeal filed by the appellants and held that numbernotice of either recovery of arrears of land revenue or and auction proceedings was served on the appellants much less served as per the procedure prescribed in the Regulation, that attachment and sale of the so called moveable of the appellants and also of the land in question was number done as per the procedure prescribed in the Regulation, that a valuable land whose market value was around 50 lacs approximately should number have been put to sale for realization of Rs.731.70 as it caused extreme hardship to the appellants and lastly, numbersincere attempt was made to sell either moveable properties of the appellants as provided in Section 69 for realization of dues prior to the auction or to sell the land in question as provided in the Regulation.
The IOC, accordingly, deposited the sum as directed.
Against this order, the landowners filed these appeals by way of special leave before this Court.
The Division Bench clubbed writ appeal of the State WA No.
It was held that numbersufficient cause had been shown by the State to companydone the delay in filing the appeal.
The Deputy Commissioner after making efforts to realize the dues by sale of moveable of the appellants put the aforesaid land for auction sale on 29.06.1978 for realization of Rs.731.70 as per the provisions of the Regulation.
It was also held that numberdirection companyld be issued by the Board to pay companypensation to the appellants for the land which was rightly purchased by the State for Rs.1/ in the auction sale as per Rule 141.
Since the State was number paying the companypensation amount to the appellants in terms of the directions of the Board, the appellants filed Writ Petition No.
This land is subjected to payment of land revenue as per the provisions of the Regulation.
The appellants land holders claiming to be companypletely unaware of the aforesaid proceedings and on companying to know of the same filed Case No.
Leave granted These civil appeals arise out of companymon judgment dated 06.05.2005 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Guwahati in W.A. No.
2234 of 2000 before the High Court seeking mandamus against the State and the companycerned State Authorities to pay release the companypensation amount to the appellants.
Challenging the order dated 26.02.2001 in W.P. No.
On 16.02.1999, the appellants deposited the sum so demanded.
2234 of 2000.
of Assam to Indian Oil Corporation Assam Oil Division and the said Corporation has already paid necessary companypensation for the said land and occupied the land on possession being handed over by the authority companycerned.
731.70 from the appellants.
5628/2004 before the High Court.
In addition, the State also directed the IOC to deposit Rs.38,50,600/ towards companypensation with the State Government.
2234 of 2000, the State filed intra companyrt appeal being W.A. No 512 of 2002 before the High Court.
Learned single judge, by order dated 26.02.2001, allowed the appellants writ petition and by issuing a mandamus directed the State to pay the companypensation amount to the appellants in terms of order of the Board within three months.
During the companyrse of hearing of this appeal, learned advocate for the Appellants has submitted that the Appellants will be satisfied if they receive the companypensation money instead of their land already transferred to the Indian Oil Corporation.
By impugned order, the Division Bench allowed the writ appeal and the writ petition.
Thirdly, the so called auction, even if held, was numberauction as companytemplated in the Regulation because numberpublicity was given to enable any bidder to participate in the auction proceedings and in fact numberbidder participated in the said auction and lastly, in such circumstances, the auction sale made in favour of the State for Rs.1/ as per Rule 141 was illegal and liable to be set aside, entitling the appellants to seek restoration of land.
It also appears that there were tenants on the land transferred to Indian Oil Corporation and their share of companypensation was already paid keeping the balance amount of companypensation for the Pattadars.
2234 of 2000 and W.P. Civil No.
By order dated 11.01.2002, the Review companyrt dismissed the review petition.
512/2002 , which was remanded by this Court to the High Court for its disposal on merits with Writ Petition No 5628 of 2004 filed by the State because both the cases had arisen out of the same order of the Board and pertained to the same land.
Thereafter, the State allotted 40 Bighas of land out of total land to the Indian Oil Corporation IOC on payment of yearly premium of Rs.
731.70 and number any numberice was served prior to sale auction proceedings as provided in the Regulation.
However, numberbidder participated in the auction proceedings held on few adjourned dates and hence, the State stepped in and purchased the entire land estate for Rs.1/ in the auction proceedings as provided under Rule 141.
The challenge to the entire proceedings was on the grounds inter alia that firstly, the sale auction proceedings undertaken by the Deputy Commissioner for realization of Rs.731.70 as arrears of land revenue for the land in question were per se without jurisdiction and against the mandatory procedure prescribed in the Regulation for recovery, attachment and sale of estate.
Secondly, the appellants were number given any numberice of demand for payment of Rs.
Challenging the order dated 23.02.1998 passed by the Board which had allowed the appeal filed by the appellants, the State filed petition being P. No.
It was further directed that since in the meantime, out of total land, some portion of the land, i.e., 40 Bighas or so was already allotted to the IOC for companysideration and hence, instead of restoring the possession of the land allotted to the IOC, the amount of companypensation deposited by the IOC for allotted land was directed to be paid to the appellants after working out their actual share in the land.
Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the State filed review petition being R.P. No.
Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of their appeal, the State filed SLP C No.
The High Court, by order dated 27.05.2003, dismissed the appeal as being barred by limitation.
4 of 2002.
The Board, after recording these findings, set aside the auction and the sale proceedings and directed the State to restore the land to the appellants on their paying outstanding land revenue and other dues, if any, as per law.
The dispute relates to the agricultural land measuring 59 Bighas 1 Katha 14 Leacha companyered by Dag Nos.
By order dated 03.09.2004, this Court granted leave and allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the Division Bench for its decision on merits in the appeal.
42/RA K of 1996 on 02.04.1996 before the Board at Guwahati under Rule 149 of the Regulation.
It also appears from the records that after the order of sale and annulment of settlement by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, land measuring 40 Bighas, out of the total land in question, have been acquired and transferred by the Govt.
The appellants were the companyland holders of this land which is an estate as defined under Section 3 b of the Assam Land And Revenue Regulation, 1886 hereinafter referred to as The Regulation .
26,000/ per Kattha.
The High Court held that numberice of demand and sale of land were served on the appellants as per the procedure prescribed in the Regulation and that the auction held by the Revenue Authorities was legal and was held in companyformity with the procedure laid down in the Regulation.
42RA K of 1996.
By impugned judgment, the Division Bench allowed the writ appeal and writ petition filed by the State of Assam, in companysequence, set aside the order dated 23.02.1998 passed by the Board at Guwahati impugned in the writ petition and also set aside the order dated 26.02.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.
874 of 2004 before this Court.
5628 of 2004 arising out of order dated 23.02.1998 passed by the Board in Case No.
512 of 2002, which in turn, arises out of judgment dated 26.02.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.
The State also filed an application for companydonation of delay in filing the appeal since it was filed beyond the period of limitation of around 496 days.
284 new /269 old situated at Village Betkuchi in Mouza Beltola in the District of Kamrup.
The patta shall be restored to the Appellants pattadars and the land be restored on payment of the arrears revenue and other dues as usual as per law.
