ARTPS appeals against Khas and Ceiling Surplus Land rejections lie before the Commissioner and Secretary, not the Director.

The four petitioners claimed rights through their predecessors over land measuring 2 Kathas and 1 Lessa covered by Dag No. 947 (old)/473 (new) at Adabari Part-II, Dhubri, supported by historical Chithas and a Kutcha Patta issued pursuant to an order of the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 08.07.1992/14.08.1992.

They applied under Mission Basundhara 2.0 for settlement of Khas and Ceiling Surplus Land: petitioner nos. 1 and 2 applied on 03.12.2022, while petitioner nos. 3 and 4 applied on 07.01.2025.

Their applications were rejected by the Circle Officer on grounds that the land had been encroached upon in an organised manner, and that there was insufficient evidence that the applicants satisfied the indigenous-person criterion under the Land Policy, 2019.

The petitioners filed what they described as first appeals before the Director of Land Records and Surveys, Assam, and sought a writ directing him to entertain and decide those appeals after condoning the delay.

The State respondents contended that, under the Notification dated 11.11.2022 and the annexed Citizen Charter, the Commissioner and Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, was the competent first appellate authority.

Whether the Director of Land Records and Surveys, Assam was the competent first appellate authority under Section 8(1) of the Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012, for appeals concerning the notified service of settlement of Khas and Ceiling Surplus Land.

Whether the High Court could direct the Director of Land Records and Surveys to entertain and decide the appeals despite his lack of statutory authority and jurisdiction.

Whether the petitioners could pursue appeals before the notified first appellate authority after seeking condonation of delay under the proviso to Section 8(1) of the ARTPS Act.

The Court applied the Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012, particularly Section 8(1), which provides for an appeal against refusal or non-delivery of a notified public service and permits the appellate authority to admit a delayed appeal upon being satisfied that sufficient cause prevented timely filing.

It relied on the Notification dated 11.11.2022 issued under Section 4 of the ARTPS Act, by which “Settlement of Khas & Ceiling Surplus Land” was notified as a public service, with the District Commissioner as the Designated Public Servant and the Commissioner and Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, as the First Appellate Authority.

The Court further applied the principle that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to compel an authority to perform an act over which it has no legal authority or jurisdiction.

The Court found that the statutory scheme and the 11.11.2022 Notification expressly designated the District Commissioner as the authority responsible for the service and the Commissioner and Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, as the first appellate authority.

Consequently, the Director of Land Records and Surveys had no jurisdiction to entertain the petitioners’ appeals. Since a court cannot issue mandamus requiring an authority to exercise a power not conferred upon it, the requested direction could not be granted.

However, the Court did not adjudicate the petitioners’ eligibility for settlement or the correctness of the rejection orders. It clarified that the petitioners remained entitled to file appeals before the competent first appellate authority and to accompany them with applications for condonation of delay, which the authority must independently assess under the proviso to Section 8(1).

The petitioners were permitted to approach the Commissioner and Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Assam, as the notified First Appellate Authority, along with applications seeking condonation of delay. The appellate authority was directed to determine whether sufficient cause existed for the delay and, based on that decision, proceed with the appeals in accordance with law.

No order as to costs was made.