The Principal Secretary To The Govt. Of Assam And 2 Ors. vs Arun Sarma And 13 Ors

Page No.# 1/22
GAHC010032002025

2026:GAU-AS:16714-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/242/2025
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.
REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006
2: THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
IN THE DISTRICT KAMRUP
ASSAM.
3: THE CIRCLE OFFICER
NORTH GUWAHATI CIRCLE
IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP
ASSA
VERSUS
ARUN SARMA AND 13 ORS
SONS OF LATE BHAGAWAN CHANDRA SARMA, RESIDENTS OF
KAMAKHYA, DISTRICT- KAMRUP (METRO), GUWAHATI, ASSAM,
REPRESENTED BY THEIR CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY SHRI JAGADISH
SHARMA, SON OF LATE SHYAMA CHARAN SHARMA, RESIDENT OF
KUMARPARA, GUWAHATI, IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP (M), ASSAM THE
STATE OF ASSAM.
2:RAMESWAR SARMA
S/O- LT. BHAGAWAN CHANDRA SARMA
R/O- KAMAKHYA
DIST.- KAMRUP (M)
GHY
ASSAM
REP. BY THEIR CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY SHRI JAGADISH SHARMA
S/O- LT. SHYAMA CHANRAN SHARMA
R/O- KUMARPARA
GHY
IN THE DIST.- OF KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM

Page No.# 2/22
3:NAGEN SARMA
S/O- LT. BHAGAWAN CHANDRA SARMA
R/O- KAMAKHYA
DIST.- KAMRUP (M)
GHY
ASSAM
REP. BY THEIR CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY SHRI JAGADISH SHARMA
S/O- LT. SHYAMA CHANRAN SHARMA
R/O- KUMARPARA
GHY
IN THE DIST.- OF KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
4:ON THE DEATH OF BINA DEVI HER LEGAL HEIR
SMTI. SABITRI GOSWAMI
DAUGHTER IN LAW OF SMTI. BINA DEVI
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/O BRAHMIN PARA ROAD
KAMAKHYA
DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M)
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN-781010.
5:ON THE DEATH OF DHIRAJ SARMA HIS LEGAL HEIR
SRI NILAY BHARADWAS S/O- LATE DHIRAJ SARMA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/O- BRAHMIN PARA ROAD
KAMAKHYA
DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M)
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN-781010.
6:GOPAL SARMA
S/O- LT. GOLAK SARMA
R/O- KAMAKHYA
DIST.- KAMRUP (M)
GHY
ASSAM
REP. BY THEIR CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY SHRI JAGADISH SHARMA
S/O- LT. SHYAMA CHANRAN SHARMA
R/O- KUMARPARA
GHY
IN THE DIST.- OF KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM

Page No.# 3/22
7:PRADIP SARMA
S/O- LT. GOLAK SARMA
R/O- KAMAKHYA
DIST.- KAMRUP (M)
GHY
ASSAM
REP. BY THEIR CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY SHRI JAGADISH SHARMA
S/O- LT. SHYAMA CHANRAN SHARMA
R/O- KUMARPARA
GHY
IN THE DIST.- OF KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
8:MADHAB SARMA
S/O- LT. GOLAK SARMA
R/O- KAMAKHYA
DIST.- KAMRUP (M)
GHY
ASSAM
REP. BY THEIR CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY SHRI JAGADISH SHARMA
S/O- LT. SHYAMA CHANRAN SHARMA
R/O- KUMARPARA
GHY
IN THE DIST.- OF KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
9:DIPAK SARMA
S/O- LT. CHANDRA KANTA SARMA
R/O- KAMAKHYA
DIST.- KAMRUP (M)
GHY
ASSAM
REP. BY THEIR CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY SHRI JAGADISH SHARMA
S/O- LT. SHYAMA CHANRAN SHARMA
R/O- KUMARPARA
GHY
IN THE DIST.- OF KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
10:JYOTI KANTA SARMA
S/O- LT. CHANDRA KANTA SARMA
R/O- KAMAKHYA
DIST.- KAMRUP (M)
GHY
ASSAM
REP. BY THEIR CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY SHRI JAGADISH SHARMA
S/O- LT. SHYAMA CHANRAN SHARMA
R/O- KUMARPARA

Page No.# 4/22
GHY
IN THE DIST.- OF KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
11:SUSHIL KANTA SARMA
S/O- LT. CHANDRA KANTA SARMA
R/O- KAMAKHYA
DIST.- KAMRUP (M)
GHY
ASSAM
REP. BY THEIR CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY SHRI JAGADISH SHARMA
S/O- LT. SHYAMA CHANRAN SHARMA
R/O- KUMARPARA
GHY
IN THE DIST.- OF KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
12:NIROD KANTA SARMA
S/O- LT. SURJYA KANTA SARMA
R/O- KAMAKHYA
DIST.- KAMRUP (M)
GHY
ASSAM
REP. BY THEIR CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY SHRI JAGADISH SHARMA
S/O- LT. SHYAMA CHANRAN SHARMA
R/O- KUMARPARA
GHY
IN THE DIST.- OF KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
13:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI IN THE DISTRICT KAMRUP M ASSAM 781006.
14:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY/ADDITIONAL SECRETARY
GOVT. OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI
IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
PIN- 78100
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. RAJIB BORPUJARI, MR. A BHATTACHARYYA,MR. R
BORPUJARI
Advocate for the Respondent : MR A C BORBORA (R-4,5), MR S A HUSSAIN(R-4,5),MS. N

Page No.# 5/22
DEY(R-4,5),BAIJOYONTA BAROOAH(R-4,5),MR. M DAS,MR S BHARALI(R-4,5),MR. B D
DEKA,MR. M DAS(R-4,5),FOR CAVEATOR

– B E F O R E –

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

For the Appellant (s) : Mr. R. Borpujari, Advocate.

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. B. D. Deka, Advocate for respondent
Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 & 12.
: Mr. A. C. Borbora, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. S. Bharali for respondent Nos. 4 & 5.



Date on which judgment
is reserved : 05.11.2026.

Date of pronouncement
of judgment : 13.11.2026

Whether the pronouncement
is of the operative part
of the judgment ? : No .

Whether the full judgment
has been pronounced : Yes .

Page No.# 6/22

UDGMENT RDER
J & O (CAV)

( K. Goswami , J )

Heard Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Advocate for the appellants; Mr. B.
D. Deka , learned Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 , 2 , 3 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 &
12 and Mr. A. C. Borbora , learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. S.
Bharali , learned Advocate for the respondent Nos. 4 & 5.
2. By filing the present writ appeal , the appellants , namely , State of
Assam through its Revenue Department have put to challenge the
judgment and order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the learned Single
Judge in WP(C) No. 5616/2020 , whereby the writ petition filed by the writ
petitioners/private respondents was disposed off , inter alia , by allowing
the writ petitioners to continue to remain as owners of the lands in N.K.
Patta No. 2 of an area comprising of 7 Bighas 2 Kathas 8 Lechas of village
Dhopatari; N.K. Patta No.3 of an area comprising of 394 Bighas 0 Katha 2
Lechas under village Bon Moza as well as N.K. Patta No.9 of an area
comprising of 158 Bighas 4 Kathas 18 Lechas of village Niz Sindurighopa
under Mouza Sindurighopa [hereinafter referred to as the “subject land”]
till such time actions are not taken in terms with the Assam Fixation of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act , 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1956
Act”).
3 . The brief facts of the case , as set out by the writ petitioners/private
respondents , are that they are the descendants of the original
landowners , who held the subject lands measuring approximately 560

Page No.# 7/22
Bighas (one Bigha being equivalent to approximately 0.33 acres). The
specific case of the writ petitioners/private respondents is that their
ancestral lands were erroneously declared as ceiling surplus under the
provisions of the 1956 Act resulting in the wrongful vesting of the said
,
lands in the Government.
It is contended that ceiling proceedings were initiated under the
1956 Act for determination and acquisition of land in excess of the
permissible ceiling limit , ordinarily fixed at 50 Bighas per person , subject to
the statutory provisions relating to families. In this regard , Ceiling Case No.
384/1974 and Ceiling Case No. 372/1976 (subsequently referred to as
Ceiling Case No. 375/1976 in certain records , apparently due to a
typographical inconsistency) were initiated. However , the first of the
aforesaid ceiling proceedings was abandoned. In the subsequent
proceedings , a draft statement was prepared inviting objections from the
landowners , whereupon an order was passed permitting them to retain
250 Bighas and declaring the remaining 310 Bighas as ceiling surplus.
However , no final statement under Section 7 of the 1956 Act is stated to
be available on record.

The writ petitioners/private respondents claim that they came to
learn about the aforesaid proceedings and the purported declaration of

their ancestral lands as ceiling surplus only in the year 2009 , upon
obtaining information from the relevant land records ( Jamabandi ) and
documents under the Right to Information Act. Consequently they
,
submitted applications under Section 7(6) of the 1956 Act in the year
2009 , seeking appropriate relief. However , the said applications came to

Page No.# 8/22

be rejected by order dated 20.06.2013 , on the ground that they were

barred by limitation , having been filed beyond the prescribed period of
30 days from the publication of the final statement. The review
applications preferred thereafter were also rejected by order dated
19.01.2015.
Aggrieved thereby, the writ petitioners/private respondents
instituted the afore-noted writ petition, out of which the present appeal
arises , seeking, inter alia , to set aside the purported final statement drawn
up in the aforesaid ceiling proceedings, the order dated 20.06.2013
rejecting their applications under Section 7(6) of the 1956 Act , and the
subsequent order dated 19.01.2015 rejecting their review applications.
They also sought restoration of possession of the subject lands in their
favour.
4 . The learned Single Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the

parties was pleased to dispose off the said writ petition , with the following
observations and directions:
“ (i) The impugned order dated 20.06.2013 as well as the order of
rejection of the review dated 19.01.2015 are set aside and quashed.
(ii) The petitioners herein would continue to remain the owners of the
lands in N.K. Patta No. 2 of an area comprising of 7 Bighas 2 Kathas 8
Lechas of village Dhopatari; N.K. Patta No. 3 of an area comprising of
394 Bighas 0 Katha 2 Lecha under village Bon Moza as well as N. K.
Patta No. 9 of and are comprising of 158 Bighas 4 Kathas 18 Lechas of
village Niz Sindurighopa under Mouza Sindurighopa till such time
actions are not taken in terms with the act of 1956.
(iii) No rights stood transferred on the basis of the Ceiling Case No.
384/1974, Ceiling Case No. 375/1976 and Ceiling Case No.

Page No.# 9/22
372/1976 in respect to the lands of the petitioners upon the State by
virtue of Section 7 (4) of the Act of 1956. Any rights on the basis of the
above proceedings created upon any other persons by the State would
be a nullity in the eye of law.
(iv) Taking into account the statutory mandate of the Act of 1956, the
observations so made herein as well as the findings, shall not preclude
the State from taking action in terms with the Act of 1956 and the rules
framed therein under.
(v) The Revenue Authorities are directed to correct the revenue records
within 30 days from the date of a certified copy of the instant judgment
is served upon the Respondent No. 2. ”
5 . Situated thus , the present appeal has been preferred by the
appellant/State.

6 . The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that
the acquisition proceedings were validly undertaken and that the
challenge made by the writ petitioners/private respondents is highly
belated and not maintainable. It is contended that the learned Single
Judge has failed to take note of the documents evidencing handing
over of possession , duly bearing the signatures of the concerned parties ,
and has also overlooked the unexplained delay of 33 years on the part of
the writ petitioners/private respondents in challenging the acquisition
proceedings , without producing any material to establish their possession
over the subject land. It is further contended that the learned Single
Judge has failed to consider the objection with regard to non-joinder of
necessary parties , particularly the third-party occupants and auction
purchasers , whose rights have already accrued in respect of the subject
land. It is also submitted that the matter involves disputed questions of

Page No.# 10/22
fact which could not have been adjudicated in exercise of writ

jurisdiction. Accordingly , it is contended that the acquisition proceedings
having been carried out in accordance with the procedure prescribed

under the law , the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
7 . Per contra , the learned counsel appearing for the writ
petitioners/private respondents submit that the learned Single Judge
,
having taken note of the fact that no final statement under Section 7(4)
of the 1956 Act was published , has rightly held that the subject land
could not have vested in the State. It is contended that in the absence of
publication of the final statement as contemplated under the aforesaid
provision , the writ petitioners/private respondents would continue to
remain the owners of the subject land , until appropriate steps are taken
in accordance with the provisions of the 1956 Act.
8 . We have given our due considerations to the arguments advanced
on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused
the materials available on record.
9 . Since the present proceedings arise out of an intra-Court appeal ,
we are conscious of the settled principles that interference with the order
passed by the learned Single Judge is not warranted merely because
another view on the facts or law is possible. Interference would be
justified only where the decision under challenge is demonstrated to be
erroneous , perverse or otherwise legally unsustainable. Bearing the
aforesaid principles in mind , we shall now proceed with the facts and
circumstances of the present case.

Page No.# 11/22
10 . The controversy involved in the lis in hand essentially revolves
around the contention of the State Government that the land in question
had been acquired as surplus land under the provisions of the 1956 Act.
The object of the said legislation is to impose a ceiling on the extent of
land that may be held by an individual or a family and to provide for the
acquisition of land held in excess of the prescribed ceiling , with a view to
preventing concentration of landholdings and facilitating equitable
distribution of surplus land. The question that , therefore , arises for
consideration is whether the land in question could have legally vested in
the State Government as surplus land in the absence of completion of
the statutory procedure prescribed under the 1956 Act.
11 . Section 2 of the 1956 Act reads as under:
“ 2. Exception. (1) The provisions of this Act shall not apply to land held
by State Government or the Union Government or by any local
authority or by any Agriculture Farming Corporation constituted under
the Assam Agricultural Farming
Corporation Act, 1973, (Assam Act No. VIII of 1973).
(2)(a) lands held and utilised for special cultivation of tea and purposes
ancillary thereto;
(b) land held by a mill, a factor, or a workshop, as the case may be, for
the purposes of the expansion of the mill, factory or workshop, or for
ancillary purposes of the mill, factory or workshop, such as setting up
of schools, dispensaries and roads, but not for any other purposes,
(c) land held by a co-operative farming society for cultivation of sugar-
cane only for the purposes of feeding a co-operative sugar factory.
Provided that if at any time, such land causes to be utilized for the
purposes mentioned in the aforesaid sub-clause, the provision of this
Act shall apply .”

Page No.# 12/22
12 . Section 4 of the 1956 Act reads as under:
“ 4. Ceiling an existing holding.-(1) [Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary in any law, customs or agreement no person shall be entitled
to hold as owner or tenant, [or mortgage in possession] land which
exceed the limit of 50 bighas in the aggregate and this limit of 50
bighas shall be applicable to the aggregate of the land held
individually by the members of a family or jointly by some or all the
members of such a family.
Provided that where the person holds 'orchard land' the
aforementioned limit shall be increased by the actual area of the
orchard subject to a maximum of 4 bighas over the limit of 50 bighas
mentioned.]
(2) [Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law, customs or
agreement, no person shall be entitled 'to hold as owner, tenant, for
mortgage in possession] land, for special cultivation of tea in excess of
such land as has been used for special cultivation of tea and purposes
ancillary thereto on the day of commencement of the Assam fixation of
Ceiling of Land Holdings, (Amendment) Act, 1970, came into force.]
Provided that the State Government may allow more lands to be
held for ancillary purposes and for increase in area under special
cultivation of tea in accordance with the rules may be prescribed.
Explanation.-Purposes ancillary to special cultivation shall mean the
following:-
(i) land used for factory building,
(ii) land used for staff building including labour line;
(iii) land used for roads, bridges, and drains within the tea estate;
(iv) land used for nurseries including shade trees,
3[(v) land used for hospitals, dispensaries, creches, recreation centres
and play;]
(vi) land used for religious institution, burial or cremation ground,
(vii) land used for any other building built by management as a
statutory requirement under any law for the time being in force;

Page No.# 13/22
(viii) land used for seed bari,
(ix) land used as may be needed for rotational plantation to maintain
the planted areas as on the commencement of this Act but not
exceeding 7-1/2 per cent of the planted area,
(x) lands lying within the boundaries of the actual planted area
excluding tenanted khet land, and
(xi) land used for bamboos baris but not exceeding 50 bighas.
4[(3) The Ceiling of a Co-operative Farming Society shall be the
aggregate of the ceiling of its individual members of their families
under sub-section (1) above:
Provided that lands held outside society by a member of a Co-
operative Society or any member of his family shall also be taken into
account for determining his ceiling.]
(4) No benami transfer made after the twelfth day of November 1955,
shall be taken into account in determining the limit upto which the
transferor shall be entitled to held under sub-section (1) above and in
such case the limit and the excess land of the transferor shall be
determined as if the transfer has not taken place]
1[(5) No person who holds land in excess of the limit fixed under
Section 4 shall, on or after the commencement of the Assam Fixation of
Ceiling of Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1970 (Assam Act VIII of
1971) transfer or partition any land until the land in excess of such
limit is determined and possession taken over by the Collector under
this Act.]
Provided that for special reasons to be recorded in writing the
Collector may permit transfer or partition of the land or any portion
thereof.
Explanation. In this Section the expression transfer shall have the
same meaning as defined in Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act
(Central Act IV of 1882) and "partition" means any division of land by
act of parties made inter vivos.
(6) If any person transfers or partitions in contravention of the
provisions of sub-section (5), or

Page No.# 14/22
Transfer or partitions any land after the first day of April, 1970
i.e. the day on which this Amending Bill was introduced in the Assam
Legislature Assembly but before the commencement of the Assam
Fixation of Ceiling of Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1970 in
anticipation of, or in order to avoid or defeat the object of the Assam
Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1970, then the
area so transferred or partition shall be taken into account in
calculating the area which that person is entitled to hold, and land
exceeding the area so calculated shall be deemed to be in excess of the
limit fixed under Section 4 notwithstanding, that the land remaining
with him may not, in fact, in the excess of such limit.
If by reason of such transfer or partition the holding of that
person is less than the area so calculated to be in excess of such limit,
then all his land shall be deemed to be surplus land, and out of the
land so transferred or partitioned and in possession of this transferred
land to the extent of such deficiency shall subject to rules made in that
behalf also be deemed to be surplus land notwithstanding that the
holding of the transferred land may not, in fact, be in excess of the
limit fixed under Section 4.
All transfers and partitions made after the first day of April 1970,
i.e., the day on which this amending Bill was introduced in the Assam
Legislative Assembly, but before the commencement of the [the Assam
Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1970 shall be
deemed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been made in
anticipation of, or in order to avoid or defeat the objects of the Assam
”
Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1970.]
13 . Section 5 of the 1956 Act reads as under:
“
5. Submission of return by person holding land in excess of the ceiling.
Any person who, on the date of commencement of this Act, ¹[ ] holds*
as owner or tenant lands which in the aggregate, exceed the limit fixed
under Section 4 above, shall within the prescribed period, submit to the
Collector, a return giving the particular of all his lands in the prescribed
form and stating therein his selection of plot or plots of land (not
exceeding in the aggregate the limit fixed under Section 4 above) which

Page No.# 15/22
he desires to retain under the provision of this Act.”
14 . Section 7 of the 1956 Act reads as under:
“ 7. Submission of statement to Government.-(1) On the basis of the
information given in the return under Section 5 above which shall be
duly verified through such agency as may be decided by the
Government or the information obtained by the Collector under Section
6 above, the Collector shall prepare a draft statement showing among
other particulars, the total area of lands held by such persons the
specific plots selected for retention with them, and also the land in
excess of the limit fixed under Section 4 remaining after such selection.
(2) The draft statement shall be published in the offices of the Deputy
Commissioner, the Sub-divisional Officer, the Circle Sub-Deputy
Collector and the Mauzadar, and a copy thereof shall be served on the
person or persons concerned in the manner prescribed. Any objection
2
received within 15 days of the service shall be duly considered by the
Collector and after giving the objector an opportunity for hearing order
shall be passed on these objection.
[The person making any such objection shall ascertain the date on
which the objection will be considered and on the day fixed or on any
other date to which the consideration may be postponed, the objector is
absence, the Collector shall consider the objections in the absence of
the objector and pass such orders as they may thinks necessary
making the statement final]
(3) The draft statement shall then be made final in terms of the final
orders passed under the preceeding sub-section and the Collector shall
sign it and affix the date.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the next sub-section, with
effect from the date on which the final statement is signed by the
Collector under the preceding sub-section, all rights title and interest of
the person or persons whose lands are shown as excess in such
statement shall stand transferred to and vest in the State Government
free from all encumbrances created by such person or persons and no
person shall entitled to question it in any Court.

Page No.# 16/22
(5) The final statement prepared under sub-section (3) above shall be
published in the same manner in which a draft statement is to be
published under sub-section (2) above.
"(6) Without prejudice to any action under any other provision of this
Act, the State Government may, on its own motion or on application, if
filed within a period of 1 (one) year from the date of publication of the
final statement under sub-section (4) or from the date on which the
Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1993
shall come into force, whichever is later, call for any record relating to
any final statement and may pass such orders as it deems fit after
giving the person or persons concerned an opportunity of being heard. "
15 . A conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions of the 1956 Act
reveals that the legislature has prescribed a specific statutory mechanism
for determination of land held in excess of the permissible ceiling and its
eventual vesting in the State Government. Section 2 of the 1956 Act
identifies certain categories of land which are exempted from the
operation of the Act , subject to the conditions stipulated therein. Section
4 prescribes the ceiling limit of 50 Bighas in respect of the aggregate
landholding of an individual and the members of his family , whether held
individually or jointly , subject to the exceptions and permissible
enhancements provided therein. The said provision also incorporates
safeguards against transfers and partitions intended to defeat the object
of the legislation. Section 5 obligates a person holding land in excess of
the prescribed ceiling to submit a return before the Collector , furnishing
particulars of all lands held by him and indicating the plots which he
seeks to retain within the permissible ceiling limit.

Section 7 further provides for the determination of the surplus land

through a prescribed procedure. Under Sub-Section (1) thereof , the

Page No.# 17/22

Collector is required to prepare a draft statement indicating , inter alia ,

the total extent of land held by the person concerned , the specific plots
selected for retention and the land found to be in excess of the
prescribed ceiling. Such draft statement is required to be served upon

the person concerned , who is afforded an opportunity to submit
objections under Sub-Section (2). The objections are required to be duly
considered after providing an opportunity of hearing whereupon the
,
statement is to be finalized in accordance with the orders passed
thereon. Significantly , Sub-Section (4) of Section 7 stipulates that the
rights , title and interest of the person concerned in respect of the land
shown as excess in the final statement shall stand transferred to and vest
in the State Government , free from encumbrances , with effect from the
date on which the final statement is signed by the Collector under Sub-
Section (3). Pursuant to such signing, the final statement prepared
thereunder is published in terms of Sub-Section (5) of Section 7 in the
Office of the Deputy Commissioner , the Sub-Divisional Officer , the Circle
Sub-Deputy Collector and the Mouzadar along with copy served upon
the concerned persons. Thus , the statutory scheme makes it clear that
the mere identification of land as surplus in a draft statement , or the
passing of an order upon objections raised thereto, does not , by itself ,
result in the vesting of such land in the State Government. Such vesting is
a statutory consequence which follows upon the finalization and signing
of the final statement in the manner prescribed under Section 7 of the
1956 Act.
It is thus evident that the determination of surplus land and the

Page No.# 18/22

consequential divestment of the rights , title and interest of the original
landholder cannot be founded merely upon an administrative decision
or an entry made in the revenue records. The statutory procedure
prescribed under the 1956 Act is not an empty formality but constitutes
the very foundation for lawful acquisition and vesting of surplus land in
the State Government. Unless the proceedings culminate in the final
statement contemplated under Section 7(3) , the consequence of vesting
envisaged under Section 7(4) cannot ensue. Any claim of the State
Government to ownership of land purportedly acquired under the 1956
Act must , therefore , be supported by demonstrable compliance with the
aforesaid statutory requirement.
16 . In the present case , it appears from the materials on record that
certain plots of land belonging to the predecessor-in-interest of the writ
petitioners/private respondents have been recorded and treated as

Government land , purportedly on the premise that the same constituted
surplus land liable to be acquired under the provisions of the 1956 Act. It

further appears that a draft statement had been prepared , pursuant to
which late Harekrishna Sharma had submitted his objections and an
order was passed on 19.06.1976 in Ceiling Case No. 372/1976. However ,
what is conspicuously absent is the final statement contemplated under
Section 7 of the 1956 Act. In fact upon a specific query being put to the
,
learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State it was fairly
,
conceded that no final statement had ever been published. Thus
,
notwithstanding the passing of the aforesaid order upon the objections
,
the statutory proceedings have not been shown to have culminated in

Page No.# 19/22
the finalization of the statement in the manner prescribed under Section
7 of the 1956 Act.
17 . There can be no quarrel with the proposition that the preparation
of a draft statement or the passing of an order upon objections raised
thereto cannot , by itself , bring about the vesting of surplus land in the
State Government. Sub-Section (4) of Section 7 unequivocally provides
that such vesting shall take effect from the date on which the final
statement is signed by the Collector under Sub-Section (3). Therefore , the
statutory vesting of land in the State Government is not an automatic
consequence of its identification as surplus land in the draft statement ,
nor can such vesting be presumed merely because the land has
subsequently been reflected in the revenue records as Government
land. In the absence of a final statement duly signed by the Collector in
terms of Section 7(3) , the essential statutory condition for vesting under
Section 7(4) remains unfulfilled. Consequently , the State Government
cannot claim to have acquired title over the land in question merely on
the basis of the draft ceiling proceedings or the consequential revenue
entries.
18 . Undoubtedly the right to property is no longer a fundamental right;
,
nevertheless it continues to be a valuable constitutional right
,
guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and has also
been recognized as a human right. [Refer: Tukaram Kana Joshi &
Ors. -Vs- Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and
Ors. :: (2013) 1 SCC 353 ]

Page No.# 20/22

19. In Vidya Devi -Vs- State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. :: (2020)

2 SCC 569 , the Apex Court reiterated that a person cannot be deprived
of his property except by authority of law. The constitutional protection

under Article 300-A , therefore , mandates that any deprivation of private
property must be supported by valid legal authority and must strictly
conform to the procedure prescribed by law.
20 . Furthermore , in Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Anorhter
-Vs- Bimal Kumar Shah & Ors. :: (2024) SCC OnLine 968 , the Apex
Court has elaborately explained the constitutional safeguards inherent in
Article 300-A and reiterated that compulsory deprivation of property must
conform to the requirements of law and the procedural safeguards
governing acquisition.
Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case ,
this Court is of the considered view that in the absence of a final
statement as contemplated under Section 7 of the 1956 Act , the State
has failed to establish that the land in question had legally vested in it as
surplus land. The mere fact that the land has been recorded or treated

as Government land , purportedly pursuant to the ceiling proceedings ,
cannot cure the failure to complete the mandatory statutory process. In

such circumstances , the action of treating the writ petitioners/private

respondents’ land as Government land , without demonstrating the
completion of the statutory process culminating in vesting under Section
7(4) of the 1956 Act cannot be sustained in law.
,
21 . In that view of the matter, when the very final statement was not

Page No.# 21/22

issued under Section 7(4) , the subject land could not have been legally

said to have vested upon the appellant/State. Hence , the question of
extinguishment of the right which have not been accrued in accordance

with law does not arise , for which the authorities concerned ought not to
have dismissed the applications filed by the writ petitioners/private
respondents under Section 7(6) of the 1956 Act on the ground of delay.
22 . Adverting now to the impugned judgment under appeal we find
,
that the learned Single Judge had taken note of the fact that the
Revenue Department had failed to produce any final statement in
connection with Ceiling Case No. 375/1976. The learned Single Judge
observed that in the absence of a final statement duly signed by the
Collector in terms of Section 7(3) of the 1956 Act , the question of vesting
of the subject land in the State Government under Section 7(4) thereof
would not arise. The learned Single Judge also took note of the fact that
although the Revenue Department had claimed that certain lands had
been identified as ceiling surplus and that rights had subsequently been

conferred upon the third parties , no such action could have been legally
undertaken in the absence of vesting of the lands in the State
Government in accordance with law.
23. We have carefully considered the aforesaid findings recorded by
the learned Single Judge and find no reason to take a different view. The
conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge is founded upon the
plain language of Section 7(4) of the 1956 Act , which makes the vesting
of the rights , title and interest in the State Government consequential
upon the signing of the final statement by the Collector under Section

Page No.# 22/22

7(3) thereof. In the absence of such a final statement , the subject land
could not have been treated as having vested in the State Government.

Consequently , the State Government could not have proceeded to

allot , settle or otherwise transfer the subject land in favour of any third
party on the strength of the purported ceiling proceedings.

24. In view of the above , we find no legal infirmity or illegality in the
judgment passed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference in
the present appeal.
Resultantly , the instant appeal, being devoid of merit, stands
dismissed.
25 . Interim order, if any, accordingly stands vacated.


JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
Pranab Kumar
Deka
Digitally signed by Pranab Kumar
Deka
Date: 2026.11.13 15:42:09 +05'30'