Rule 116 of Settlement Rules Requires Loss of Proprietary Interest, Not Mere Physical Possession, to Strike Out Land Records

The petitioners own Sonarie Tea Estate under a periodic patta (K.P. Patta No. 1) in Sivasagar district

Within this estate lies a water body (Sonai Pukhuri) measuring approx. 35 Bighas

Following a previous writ petition by a cultural organization claiming the pond was a historical site used for public rituals, the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) initiated proceedings under Rule 116 of the Settlement Rules

On 27.03.2015, the ADC passed an order declaring the land "Sarkari" (Government land) and striking out the petitioner’s name from the Records of Rights, on the grounds that the petitioner had no possession and the public was using the water body

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 exercising powers under Rule 116 of the Settlement Rules to strike the petitioner's name and convert the land to "Sarkari" based on a lack of physical possession

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

Rule 116 of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, which empowers 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 relied on the precedent Bhabani Shankar Bagaria v. State of Assam & Ors. (2008) 4 GLR 134, which establishes that "possession of interest" is distinct from mere physical possession and that a proprietor does not cease to have interest in land simply because of encroachment or public use

The court reasoned that the expression "no longer in possession of any such interest in the estate" in Rule 116 is of vital importance and cannot be equated with a mere lack of physical possession

The court noted that because the petitioners held a valid patta and continued to pay land revenue, they maintained a "possession of interest" in the estate

Therefore, the ADC committed a fundamental jurisdictional error by invoking Rule 116 based on the finding that the public was using the pond

Allowing such an interpretation would render constitutionally and statutorily guaranteed property rights "otiose"

Regarding the PWD tender, the court held that the State cannot initiate infrastructure projects on private leasehold land until the land is legally vested back with the State

The court: (i) Set aside and quashed the ADC's order dated 27.03.2015; and (ii) Quashed the NIT dated 24.01.2020 specifically regarding the "Sonari Pukhuri Approach Road". The status of the land as the petitioner's patta land was restored.