Unauthorized transfer of Annual Patta land warrants lease cancellation and land reversion to the State.

The Government of Assam granted Annual Pattas (APs) for cultivation to several original pattadars in Barpeta District

The petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest, Sri Prabhat Chandra Das, took over possession of these lands from the original pattadars

In 2004, the Lot Mandal reported that the AP land was in the possession of third parties, constituting a violation of patta conditions

Consequently, the Additional Deputy Commissioner (ADC), Barpeta, initiated Non-Renewal Case No. 3/06-07 and, by order dated 24.05.2007, cancelled the APs for Dag Nos. 203 and 221, reverting the land to the Government

The petitioner challenged this before the Assam Board of Revenue, which dismissed the appeal on 28.11.2008

The petitioner then filed this writ petition, arguing that as his predecessor's name was in the Record of Rights, he was entitled to notice and the benefit of Clause 11.2 of the Assam Land Policy, 2019

1. Whether the transfer of possession by an Annual Pattadar to a third party renders the Annual Patta liable for cancellation and non-renewal under the Settlement Rules

2. Whether the entry of a transferee's name in the Record of Rights confers a right against the State or entitles them to mandatory notice in non-renewal proceedings

3. Whether a petitioner can claim a legitimate right over land based on Clause 11.2 of the Assam Land Policy, 2019, in the absence of an established mechanism for its implementation

The court primarily applied Rule 1(2)(c) of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, which defines an "Annual Lease" as a one-year grant conferring no right of transfer or sub-letting

It further relied on the principle established in Molan Saikia v. State of Assam (1951), stating that while an AP continues unless a non-renewal notice is given, any transfer made by the pattadar is not binding on the Government

Additionally, the court applied the doctrine that mutation entries in the Record of Rights neither confer nor extinguish title

Regarding the scope of judicial review, the court referenced Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das to limit interference under Article 226 unless gross perversity is shown

The court reasoned that under Rule 1(2)(c), an Annual Patta is a restrictive grant that strictly prohibits transfer

While a transfer might be valid between the transferor and transferee (inter-se), it cannot be enforced against the State

Therefore, when the ADC found that the original pattadars had transferred possession, the cancellation of the APs was a lawful exercise of power

The court rejected the petitioner's argument regarding the Record of Rights, holding that mere mutation does not grant the petitioner a legal right against the State

Regarding the Assam Land Policy, 2019, the court observed that Clause 11.2 expresses a policy intent to recognize transfers but specifically requires the evolution of a "suitable mechanism"

Since the Standing Counsel for the Revenue Department confirmed that no such mechanism had been established yet, the petitioner could not claim any immediate right under the 2019 Policy to override the cancellation

The court dismissed the challenge to the orders dated 24.05.2007 and 28.11.2008, upholding the cancellation of the Annual Pattas

However, the court directed that the dismissal would not preclude the petitioner from seeking allotment of the land under the Assam Land Policy, 2019, should the State Government evolve the "suitable mechanism" mentioned in Clause 11.2. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly