MUST. JALIKA BIBI AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State Government acquired the zamindari of what is described as Hasanpur Estate under Section 3(1) of the Assam State Acquisition of Zamindaris Act, 1951, as amended, on 24 -3 -1960. The petitioners along with the opposite parties 6 to 19 claim to be in possession of the land by cultivating different varieties of paddy thereon as raiyats under the erstwhile proprietors of Hasanpur Estate. They were paying rent regularly to the erstwhile proprietors since the year 1356 B. S. corresponding to 1949. They also state that they had got rent receipts from their landlord. After the land vested in the Government under Section 4 of the Assam State Acquisition of Zamindaris Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', the Manager of the Acquired Estate received rent from the petitioner as will appear from Annexure 'I' to the petition at page 31. This rent was realised by the Manager of the Acquired Estate on 28 -3 -1961. There was some objection from the Anchalik Panchayat and it is said that certain enquiries were made. Even an application under Section 144, Criminal P. C. was made at the instance of the Panchayat President which, however, was not pursued. In the above background the petitioner received a notice dated 23 -7 -1968 from the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Silchar, purported to be made under Section 8(2) of the Act. This notice was in Form A of the Rules as Section 8(2) provides for a notice to precede eviction. The petitioners lodged objection to the notice and stated that they were holding the land and cultivating the same for a number of years from the proprietor by paying rent to him. Even so, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, who treated this show cause notice of the petitioners as a miscellaneous appeal, disposed of the same on 14 -10 -1969 rejecting the same by a very short order. The order shows that the Additional Deputy Commissioner was taking note of the report furnished by the Subdivisional Officer, Karimganj and the copy of the Khatian and also a letter of the Revenue Officer and Settlement Officer, Karimganj to the President, Badarpur Anchalik Panchayat. It does not appear from the order what these reports contained but he appears to be satisfied therefrom and the objection was held to be untenable. It is against these two orders dated 23 -7 -1968 and 14 -10 -1969 that the Rule was obtained by the petitioners on 17 -11 -1969. This Court stayed the eviction and further proceedings when it issued Rule nisi.

(2.) THE question that comes up for consideration is whether the notice, which is purported to be one under S. 8(2) of the Act, is valid against the petitioners who claim themselves as raiyats or tenants under the erstwhile landlord. In order to appreciate this question it is appropriate to notice some provisions of this Act. Section 3 provides for a notification declaring the vesting of the estate or tenure in the State under the Act. Section 4(1) reads as under: -.

(3.) I agree.