KISHANLAL AGARWALA AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two civil rules under Article 226 of the Constitution raise common questions of law and they relate to the land of the same C. S. plot So they were heard together and the came judgment and order will cover both of them.

(2.) THE brief narration of Civil Rule No. 292/78 is that land of dag No. 707 (old 760) of Nowgong town measuring 2B -4K. 4L. belonged to Nowgong Local Board of which the Board leased out to the petitioner 12 lechas of land at a fixed rent of Rs. 90/ - per month in 1955 and a patta wag executed in that behalf. The petitioner constructed a permanent house in which he resided and carried on business in textile. The house which has been serving the purposes of both residence and textile business of the petitioner falls within Nowgong Municipal Board and the house was constructed with the permission of the Municipal authority. The Municipality also entered the holding of the petitioner in its assessment records. In 1929 the Nowgong Local Board leased out 15 lechas of land to late Abdul Kadar, a pleader of Nowgong with effect from 27 -2 -1929 under dag No. 707. This land is adjacent to the land which was leased out to the petitioner as aforesaid, Abdul, Kader constructed houses on his land and in 1959 the petitioner took lease of 6 lechas of land of Abdul Kader together with a bouse on it at Rs. 88/ -per month. The petitioner annexed this land to the land previously taken lease of from the Nowgong Local Board. Subsequently the land measuring 6 lechas taken from Abdul Kader was purchased by the petitioner. Thus the petitioner came to possess 18 lechas of land with buildings thereon.

(3.) THE petitioner challenges the aforesaid order of eviction on the basis of his fundamental and legal rights attached to the property under notice on the grounds tbat the Nowgong Local Board as owner of the land settled a part of the land under dag No. 707 to the petitioner and another part appertaining to the same dag to late Abdul Kader from whom the petitioner subsequently derived right to the property that ultimately the land vested in Howgong Mahkuma Farishad as successor -in -interest, that the lands are still property Of the Mahkuma Parishad under which the petitioner holds his lease -hold right and that the Mahkuma Parishad was not divested of the title to the land and also that it never vested in the Government. The Government, according to the petitioner, being not owner of the land on 28 -8 -1978 or at any time before or after it could not issue any notice under Rule 18 of the Regulation. Therefore the authority of the Government to issue the impugned notice has been challenge ed as illegal and beyond jurisdiction,