On a writ petition filed by the respondent, the Assam High Court quashed the order of dismissal.
6SupC.I./66 15 Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 13, 1963 of the Assam and Nagaland High Court in Civil Rule No.
311 2 of the Constitution.
It is companymon case that this dismissal from office was made without companyplying with the provisions of Art.
The Mauzadar is spoken of as a revenue companytractor, see Baden Powells Land Systems of British India, Vol.
The companyrectness of this finding is challenged by the State of Assam in this appeal by special leave.
Under the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur, the respondent was suspended on August 22, 1949 and was dismissed from the office of the Mauzadar on July 4, 1962.
Under the Mauzadari system of companylecting revenue prevailing in the Assam Valley, the revenue charge of a Monza and the responsibility for the whole revenue of it in the first instance rest with the Mauzadar.
A brief description of the Mauzadari system is given at pp.
56 and 57 of the Introduction to the Assam Land Revenue Manual, 6th Edn.
His father also before his death was the Mauzadar of Mancotta Monza for about 52 years from 1885 to 1938.
3, p. 459.
On March 4, 1939, respondent, Kanak Chandra Dutta, was appointed Mauzadar of Mancotta Monza in the Dibrugarh Sub division of Lakhimpur District.
254 of 1964 .
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
387 of 1962.
R. Chaudhuri, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat, J. This appeal raises the question whether a Mau zadar in the Assam Valley holds a civil post under the State of Assam, and is entitled to the protection of Art.
V. Gupte, Solicitor General and Naunit Lal, for the appellant.
311 2 of the Constitution.
