Gauhati High CourtAssam Public Works vs The State Of Assam & 7 Ors on 4 April, 2017Author:Manojit BhuyanBench:Manojit BhuyanPIL No. 17    of 2017

                                     BEFORE
                 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AJIT SINGH
                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT BHUYAN
04-04-2017
     (Ajit Singh, C.J.)
                    Mr CP Sarma, Mr A Chamuah and Mr. U Chamuah, learned
             counsel for the petitioner.
                    Mr BN Sarma, learned senior Government Advocate,
             Assam for the respondents.Heard on admission.The competent authority/ District Commissioner, Kamrup
             vide order   26.4.1985 exempted certain lands covered by Dag
             Nos. 59, 61 and 532 of K.P. Patta No. 29, 49 and 57 situated at
             Village Hatigaon, Mouza Beltola measuring 7 Bigha 1 Katha 9
             Lecha in favour of M/S Steel Worth Limited underSection 20
             (1)(a)of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976. Later,
             some of these lands were settled in the name of M/S Buildworth
             Private Limited on 31.12.2009.     Since some mistakes occurred
             during the settlement operation, Director, M/S Buildworth Private
             Limited filed a petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup
             (Metro) for correction of the mistakes. The Deputy Commissioner
             vide order dated 12.12.2011 after perusing the records rectified
             the mistakes.Now when after settlement of land as far back as in the
             year 2009 in the name of M/S Buildworth Private Limited and
             rectification of the mistakes in the revenue records vide order
             dated 12.12.2011, many multistoried buildings have been
             constructed, the petitioner in the garb of a Public Interest
             Litigation has filed the present petition challenging the settlementPage 1 of 2of land in the name of M/S Buildworth Private Limited as well as
         order dated 12.12.2011.After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are
         convinced that this is not a genuine Public Interest Litigation and
         the same has been filed for extraneous consideration. It is
         accordingly dismissed summarily.JUDGE                        CHIEF JUSTICE




ISINGHPage 2 of 2