Rule 116 of Settlement Rules Requires Loss of Interest in Estate, Not Mere Loss of Physical Possession

The petitioners own Sonarie Tea Estate under K.P. Patta No. 1

Within the estate lies a water body (Sonari Pukhuri) covering approximately 35 Bighas

Following a previous writ petition by a local cultural organization alleging the pond's historical significance to the Tai Ahom community, the Additional Deputy Commissioner (ADC), Sivasagar, initiated Misc Case No. 05/2014 under Rule 116 of the Settlement Rules

On 27.03.2015, the ADC passed an order declaring the land "Sarkari" (government land) and striking the petitioners' names from the Records of Rights, on the grounds that the petitioners were not in physical possession as the public used the pond

Subsequently, the PWD issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) on 24.01.2020 to construct an approach road to the pond

1. Whether the Revenue Authority was justified in invoking Rule 116 of the Settlement Rules to strike out the name of a recorded landholder on the grounds of lack of physical possession

2. Whether the PWD could legally issue a tender for infrastructure work on land held under a periodic lease/patta by a private party

The court applied Rule 116 of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, which permits the Deputy Commissioner to strike a name from the register only when a person is "no longer in possession of any such interest in the estate"

The court reinforced this by citing Bhabani Shankar Bagaria v. State of Assam & Ors. (2008) 4 GLR 134, which established that "possession of interest" is not synonymous with mere physical possession and that a proprietor does not cease to have interest simply because of third-party encroachment or public use

The court reasoned that Rule 116 requires a loss of "interest in the estate," not merely a loss of physical occupation

It held that the ADC committed a fundamental error by equating public use of the water body with a total loss of the petitioners' proprietary interest, especially since the petitioners continued to pay land revenue for the patta

The court observed that interpreting Rule 116 to allow the government to declare land "Sarkari" whenever a holder loses physical possession would create a chaotic situation and render constitutional/statutory property rights otiose

Consequently, since the petitioners maintained a legal interest in the estate, the jurisdictional facts required to invoke Rule 116 were absent

Regarding the PWD tender, the court found it legally impermissible for the state to execute works on land where the title remains vested in a private party under a valid periodic lease

It further set aside the NIT dated 24.01.2020 specifically regarding the "Sonari Pukhuri Approach Road," clarifying that the PWD cannot undertake such works until the land legally vests with the state

No order as to costs was made