Families Remain Owners Of 560 Bighas For Now, As Assam Published No Final Ceiling Statement: Gauhati HC

The respondents, descendants of the original landholders, claimed ownership of approximately 560 bighas declared surplus in ceiling proceedings under the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1956.

Although a draft statement was prepared and objections were dealt with by an order dated 19 June 1976, no final statement under Section 7 was produced.

The respondents said they learned of the proceedings in 2009 and applied under Section 7(6); their applications and subsequent review were rejected as time-barred in 2013 and 2015.

In their writ petition, the Single Judge set aside those orders, held that the respondents remained owners pending action under the Act, and directed correction of the revenue records.

The State appealed, relying, among other things, on delay, possession records, third-party interests, and disputed facts.

The State conceded in the appeal that no final statement had been published.

Sections 4 and 5 of the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1956 prescribe the ceiling on landholdings and require a person holding land in excess to submit a return.

Section 7 sets out the process for determining surplus land: a draft statement is prepared, objections are considered, and the statement is finalized and signed by the Collector under subsection (3).

Under Section 7(4), the rights, title and interest in land shown as excess vest in the State from the date the final statement is signed; a draft statement or revenue entry alone does not effect vesting.

Article 300-A of the Constitution requires deprivation of property to be supported by authority of law and compliance with the applicable legal procedure.

The Court relied on Tukaram Kana Joshi v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, (2013) 1 SCC 353; Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2020) 2 SCC 569; and Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah, 2024 SCC OnLine 968, concerning the protection against deprivation of property except in accordance with law.

The statutory scheme made the signing of a final statement under Section 7(3) the necessary precondition to vesting under Section 7(4).

Here, the record showed only a draft statement and an order on objections; the State conceded that no final statement had been published, and no signed final statement was produced.

The State therefore could not establish that the land had vested in it, and neither subsequent revenue entries nor purported allotments to third parties could cure that failure to complete the statutory process.

In those circumstances, the Court held that the respondents’ applications could not be rejected on limitation grounds as though their rights had already been extinguished through lawful vesting.

The Single Judge’s conclusion was consistent with the statute and Article 300-A, and the appellate arguments did not justify interference.

Finding no legal infirmity in the Single Judge’s judgment, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit; any interim order stood vacated.