Rule 18 eviction powers do not extend to encroachments on privately owned land.

Tezpore Tea Company Ltd., now Dhunseri Tea and Industries Ltd., owned Bahipukhuri Tea Estate. In proceedings under the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1956, an area of 277 bighas 2 kathas 3 lechas was allegedly shown as ceiling-surplus land, although the Company contended that the land had been included inadvertently.

Pursuant to the Gauhati High Court’s order dated 5 May 1992 in Civil Rule No. 4866/1991, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, on 17 November 1992, determined that 216 bighas 4 kathas 5 lechas had been handed over as excess land and directed that the area covered by Dag No. 8 be registered in favour of Bahipukhuri Tea Estate and that the records of rights be corrected.

The records were accordingly corrected, and the Revenue Authorities subsequently initiated steps to evict persons allegedly occupying the land and to hand over possession to the Tea Estate.

Following a direction issued in Civil Rule No. 2423/1993, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Udalguri, passed the impugned order dated 31 May 2013, reiterating the 1992 determination but holding that proceedings under Rule 18 could not be initiated because the land was private patta land belonging to the Petitioner Company.

Whether the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Udalguri, was justified in declining to exercise jurisdiction under Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules for ejecting persons allegedly encroaching upon the Petitioners’ land.

Whether Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules authorises the Revenue Authorities to evict encroachers from private land recorded in the name of a private tea company.

Whether the Petitioners were entitled to exclusion of the period spent prosecuting the writ proceedings under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for any subsequent civil proceedings.

The Court applied Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, which empowers the Deputy Commissioner to eject persons from land over which no person has acquired rights as proprietor, landholder, or settlement-holder.

Rule 18(2) limits that power to specified categories, including land reserved for roads, roadside purposes, grazing, or other public purposes; land from which a person has been excluded by order; Government khas land; waste land; and estates over which no person has acquired proprietary, landholder, or settlement-holder rights.

The Court held that private land belonging to a proprietor, landholder, or settlement-holder falls outside Rule 18, particularly because Rule 18(3)(a) permits confiscation or destruction of crops, buildings, and other constructions.

It also applied Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, permitting exclusion of time spent bona fide prosecuting proceedings before a court lacking jurisdiction or otherwise unable to grant the appropriate relief.

The Court found that, pursuant to the 17 November 1992 order, the disputed land covered by Dag No. 8 had been recorded and registered in the name of Bahipukhuri Tea Estate.

Consequently, the land was private property and did not fall within any of the categories enumerated in Rule 18(2). The alleged occupation by Respondent Nos. 6–58 therefore constituted a private dispute between the Company and the alleged encroachers, rather than an encroachment upon Government or other public land amenable to summary eviction under the Settlement Rules.

Permitting the Deputy Commissioner to act under Rule 18 in such circumstances would improperly authorise the Revenue Authorities to confiscate or destroy constructions on private land and to adjudicate civil disputes concerning private possession and title.

The Court accordingly held that the Revenue Authorities’ jurisdiction to interfere with the private land had been ousted once the land was recorded in the Company’s name.

Given the Petitioners’ bona fide pursuit of remedies before the High Court, the Court also considered the period during which the writ petition remained pending excludable under Section 14 of the Limitation Act for any civil proceedings instituted before the competent court.

The writ petition challenging the order dated 31 May 2013 was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

The Court clarified that the Petitioners could pursue appropriate civil remedies against the alleged private encroachers and granted them the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act for the period from 18 April 2018 until the date of judgment while computing limitation for such proceedings.