M/S. Sonarie Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors

Page No.# 1/15
GAHC010022352015

2026:GAU-AS:6921
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI
WP(C) No. 6015/2015

M/s Sonarie Tea Company Private Limited,
(i)
Regd. Office at Sonarie Tea Estate
P.O. Sonari, District:Sivasagar,
Represented by its Managing Director,
Shri Manavi Ram Baruva.

(ii) Shri Manavi Ram Baruva,
S/o Late Parbati Prasad Baruva,
Kharghuli Hillside,
Guwahati, District-Kamrup.


..... Petitioners

Vs.

(i) The State of Assam,
Represented by the Commissioner & Secretary,
to the Government of Assam, Revenue & Disaster
Management Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6.

Page No.# 2/15
(ii) The Deputy Commissioner, Sivasagar,
District-Sivasagar.
(iii) The Director of Land Records,
Government of Assam, Guwahati.

(iv) The Additional Deputy Commissioner (Rev),
Sivasagar, District-Sivasagar.

(v) The S.D.O. (Civil),
Charaideo, District- Sivasagar.

(vi) Charaidew Mohkuma Tai Ahom Sangskritik
Santha, Charaidew, District- Sivasagar.

………
Respondents

WP(C) No. 1470/2020

(i) M/s Sonarie Tea Company Private Limited,
Regd. Office at Sonarie Tea Estate
P.O. Sonari, District:Sivasagar,
Represented by its Managing Director,
Shri Manavi Ram Baruva.

(ii) Shri Manavi Ram Baruva,
S/o Late Parbati Prasad Baruva,
Kharghuli Hillside,
Guwahati, District-Kamrup.

Page No.# 3/15


..... Petitioners

Vs.

(i) The State of Assam,
Represented by the Commissioner & Secretary
to the Government of Assam, Public Works
Department (Road), Dispur, Guwahati-6.

(ii) The Commissioner & Secretary to
the Government of Assam, Revenue & Disaster
Management Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6.

(iii) The Director of Land Records,
Government of Assam, Guwahati.

(iv) Deputy Commissioner, District-Charaideo,
PIN-782002.

(v) The S.D.O. (Civil),
District- Charaideo, PIN-782445.

(vi) The Additional Deputy Commissioner (Rev),

Page No.# 4/15
Sivasagar, District:Sivasagar-785640.

(vii) The Chief Engineer,
Public Works Department (Road),
Chandmari, Guwahati-781003.

(viii) The Additional Chief Engineer,
Public Works Department (Road),
Eastern Zone, Dibrugarh-786001.

(ix) The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Charaideo District Territorial Road
Division, Charaideo-785690.

(x) The Superintending Engineer,
Public Works Department Jorhat,
Road Circle, Jorhat-785001.
(xi) Charaidew Mohkuma Tai Ahom Sangskritik
Santha, Charaidew, District- Sivasagar.


………
Respondents

Page No.# 5/15

- B e f o r e-
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

Advocate for the petitioner(s) : Mr. K. N. Choudhury,
Senior Advocate.

Assisted by Mr. A. Das and Mr. M.
Das, Advocate.

Advocate for the respondent(s) : Mr. R. Borpujari, S.C., Revenue and
Disaster Management Department
for all the respondents.

Date of which Judgment is reserved : N/A
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 19.05.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of the : N/A
operative part of the Judgment?
Whether the full judgment has been : Yes
pronounced?
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)


Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.
A. Das and Mr. M. Das, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the
petitioners in both the writ petitions. I have also heard Mr. R.
Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue and Disaster
Management Department appearing on behalf of all the respondents
in WP(C) No. 6015/2015 and for the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 in

Page No.# 6/15
WP(C) No. 1470/2020. None appears on behalf of the PWD
Department in WP(C) No. 1470/2020, when the matter is called for.
2. Upon hearing the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the
parties, it transpires that the outcome of WP(C) No. 1470/2020 would
be dependent upon the adjudication in WP(C) No. 6015/2015. Under
such circumstances, this Court takes up the first writ petition for
adjudication and depending upon the decision in the first writ petition,
this Court would take upon the second writ petition.
WP(C) No. 6015/2015
3. The present writ petition application was filed challenging the
Order dated 27.03.2015 passed by the Additional Deputy
Commissioner (Revenue), Sivasagar in Misc Case No. 05/2014,
whereby, the land measuring 35 Bighas 4 Kathas 10 Lechas covered
by Dag Nos. 8, 9, 11 & 12 of Patta Nos. 1 and 54 of Abhoypur Mouza
under Sonari Revenue Circle was made Sarkari.
CONSPECTUS OF FACTS :
4. The brief facts which led to filing of the present petition are –
(A) The fore fathers of the Managing Director/Directors of the
Petitioner No. 1 company purchased a tea garden in the name and
style of Sonarie Tea Estate. The Sonarie Tea Estate is situated over a
plot of land covered by 34 Dags and within KP Patta No. 1 of Sonari

Page No.# 7/15
Grant, Abhoypur Mouza, under Sonari Revenue Circle in the district of
Sivasagar.
(B) It is an admitted fact that within the said Sonarie Tea Estate,
there is a water body covering 35 Bighas 4 Kathas 10 Lechas, which is
situated over Dag Nos. 11, 8, 9 & 12 of K.P. Patta No. 1.
(C) A Proceeding was initiated under Rule 116 of the Settlement
Rules framed under Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 (for
short, ‘The Regulation’) by the Additional Deputy Commissioner
(Revenue), Sivasagar.
(D) An organisation in the name and style of Charaidew Mohkuma
Tai Ahom Sangskritik Santha had approached this Court by filing a writ
petition, being WP(C) No. 3339/2007, stating inter-alia that the water
th
body, which is otherwise called the ‘Sonai Pukhuri’ was dug in the 16
century during the reign of Ahom King Gadapani. The said water body
have been in use for the last 5 centuries by the Tai Ahom Community
for the rituals in the Medam-Me-Phi and Jasinfa festivities.
(E) On account of certain alleged interference caused to the
Petitioners and the State Authorities, the said Organisation
approached this Court by filing a writ petition, being WP(C) No.
3339/2007. In the affidavit filed by the Additional Deputy
Commissioner, Sivasagar in the said writ proceeding; it was mentioned
that the pond was used for festive rituals and recreational purposes

Page No.# 8/15
and water from ‘Sonari Pukhuri’ was also used for irrigation purposes
by the local cultivators. It was also mentioned that the proceedings
were initiated under Rule 116 of the Settlement Rules. The learned
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.10.2014,
disposed of the writ petition with a direction that the proceedings
under Rule 116 of the Settlement Rules be brought to a logical
conclusion within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of the
said order.
(F) It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners were unaware
of these proceedings under Section 116, till the order was passed by
the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 14.10.2014 in WP(C)
No. 3339/2007.
(G) It is further seen that on the basis of the said proceedings which
was registered as Misc Case No. 05/2014, the impugned order was
passed on 27.03.2015, whereby, it was opined that the petitioner No.
1 had no possession over the water body for long years and the
disputed land had been used by the public. Accordingly, the Circle
Officer, Sonari Revenue Circle was directed to strike out the name of
the petitioner No. 1 from the ‘Records of Rights’, i.e., from the land
documents and to convert the land to ‘General Sarkari Land’ and kept
reserve for public purposes.

Being aggrieved by the said order dated 27.03.2015, the WP(C)

Page No.# 9/15
No. 6015/2015 was filed before this Court on 28.09.2015.
5. The record reveals that this Court vide an order dated 05.10.2015,
while issuing notice, directed status-quo be maintained. The said
interim order, thereupon, had been extended from time to time and
still continues.
6. The record further reveals that an affidavit-in-opposition was filed
by the respondent authorities, thereby, justifying the order dated
27.03.2015. In addition to that, in an additional affidavit which was
filed by the District Commissioner, Charaideo on 01.08.2017, it was
mentioned that recording of the said water body into the patta of the
respondent No. 1’s land was an error on the part of the concerned Lat
Mandal.
7. In the backdrop of the above, this Court now finds it very
pertinent to take note of the second writ petition, which is WP(C) No.
1470/2020.
WP(C) No. 1470/2020
8. The reason for filing the second writ petition was that certain
actions were taken by the PWD department to construct an approach
road to the water body which was the subject matter of adjudication
in WP(C) No. 1615/2015.

Page No.# 10/15
9. The records reveal that vide an order dated 03.03.2020, the
learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while issuing notice, had
discussed and directed that the status-quo order passed in WP(C) No.
6015/2015 stood extended to the water body.

10. The question, therefore, which arises in the instant proceeding is
as to whether, the respondent authorities, more particularly, the
Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Sivasagar was justified in
passing the order dated 27.03.2015; more so, in the exercise of the
powers under Rule 116 of the Settlement Rules.
11. For that purpose, this Court finds it pertinent to take note of Rule
116 of the Settlement Rules, which is reproduced herein under –
“ Power of Deputy Commissioner to order the name of a proprietor, of etc., be
struck out of register.
-Whenever it comes to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner that any person whose name
is recorded in the General Registers as proprietor, settlement-holder or manager of an estate
is no longer in possession of any such interest in the estate, the Deputy Commissioner may
order the name of such person to be struck out from the register:
Provided that the Deputy Commissioner shall not strike out the name of any recorded
proprietor or landholder, or manager on behalf of a proprietor or land-holder, without giving
him due notice and hearing any objections he may prefer against his name being struck out. ”

12. A perusal of the above quoted Rule would show that whenever it
comes to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner that any person,

Page No.# 11/15
whose name is recorded in the General Registers as a proprietor,
settlement-holder or manager of an estate is no longer in possession
of any such interest in the estate, the Deputy Commissioner may
order the name of such person to be struck out from the register. The
expression “no longer in possession of any such interest in the estate”
is of vital importance, in as much as it is only when a person does not
have possession over any interest in the estate, the power can be
exercised. The said expression, under no circumstances can be
equated to a situation when the person is not in possession of the
land in question.

13. It is the further opinion of this Court that if an interpretation is
given that a person who loses possession to another and the person’s
name is required to be struck off and made Sarkari ‘General Land’, it
would result in a chaotic situation and further, the rights which have
been constitutionally and statutorily guaranteed, would become
otiose.
14. This Court also finds it relevant to take note of the judgment of a
Co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Bhabani Shankar
Bagaria Vs. State of Assam & Ors. , reported in (2008) 4 GLR
134 . Paragraph 5 of the said judgment being relevant to this issue, is
reproduced herein below ꟷ

Page No.# 12/15
“ (5) In the backdrop of the law, as indicated above, when one turns to the facts of the
present case, it becomes more than abundantly clear that in the case in hand, when the
prayer made by the said encroachers to treat them as tenants, within the meaning of the
Assam (Temporary Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971, had been rejected and the order stood
affirmed in the appeal by the Assam Board of Revenue and when the orders, so passed, have
attained finality, it cannot be said that the petitioner, as proprietor of the said tea estate, has
ceased to have interest over the said land nor can it be said to be a case, where the
petitioner, as proprietor or settlement-holder, has ceased to have any interest over the said
land, which forms the subject-matter of controversy in this writ petition. This apart, the civil
suits are, admittedly, pending and in the civil suits, the petitioner, as plaintiff, has sought for,
inter alia, declaration of his rights, title, interest and possession over the suit land, khaas
possession thereof by ejecting the defendants and also for permanent injunction restraining
the defendants, their men and agents from trespassing into the suit land in future.
15. In the backdrop of the above principles, the question therefore
arises as to whether; the Additional District Commissioner (Revenue),
Sivasagar could have at all exercised the powers under Rule 116 of
the Settlement Rules in the facts of the present case.
16. The petitioners herein claimed and have been claiming that the
water body is within their land and the admitted stand of the
Respondents that the water body is within the petitioners’ land, is also
not in dispute; taking into account the very impugned order dated
27.03.2015 as well as the initiation of proceeding under Rule 116
against the petitioners.
17. This Court had perused the impugned order dated 27.03.2015

Page No.# 13/15
and the reason so assigned in the said order is that the petitioner is
no longer in possession of the water body and the public have been
using it. Rule 116 of the Settlement Rules does not merely state about
the possession, but it refers to possession of interest in the estate.
There is also no quarrel with the fact that the petitioners have been
duly paying the revenue in respect to the ‘Patta’ in question. Under
such circumstances, it is therefore, the opinion of this Court that the
Rule 116 of the Settlement Rules could not have been invoked in
respect to the water body in question, taking into account that the
petitioners continue to have possession of interest in the estate,
which includes the water body.
18. The above fundamental mistake committed by the Additional
District Commissioner (Revenue) is apparent from a perusal of the
impugned order dated 27.03.2015 and therefore, the same cannot be
sustained in law.
19. Let this Court now deal with the action so taken for issuance of a
NIT for Infrastructure upgradation to “Sonari Pukhuri Approach Road
(Historical Pukhuri)”, which is the subject matter of the second writ
petition. The Respondent PWD authorities floated a tender for
construction of an approach road over the land, wherein, there is a
periodic lease is favour of the petitioners by granting of patta.

Page No.# 14/15

20. In the opinion of this Court, the PWD authorities could not have
issued the Notice Inviting Tender dated 24.01.2020, for Infrastructure
upgradation to “Sonari Pukhuri Approach Road (Historical Pukhuri)”,
till the land vests with the Petitioner No. 1.

21. Accordingly, the instant writ petitions stands disposed of with the
following observations and directions-
(i) The impugned order dated 27.03.2015 passed by the Additional
Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Sivasagar in Misc Case No. 05/2014
is set aside and quashed.
(ii) The impugned Notice Inviting Tender dated 24.01.2020 in so far
as the tender related to the Infrastructure upgradation to “Sonari
Pukhuri Approach Road (Historical Pukhuri)” is interfered with. It is
clarified that this Court has not interfered with the other works which
have been mentioned in the detailed Notice Inviting Tender dated
24.10.2010.
(iii) There shall be no order as to costs.

JUDGE

Page No.# 15/15
Comparing Assistant