STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS. versus SMT. RADHA KANOO AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1996] 3 S.C.R. 178 · Decided: 01-03-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
ST A TE OF ASSAM AND ORS. 
v. 
SMT. RADHA KANOO AND ORS. ETC. 
MARCH 1, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Assam Land and Revenue Regulation & Regulation 3(b ). 
Settlement Rules: Rules 16,17,17(A),18,39 and 122. 
Assam Public Premises( Eviction of unauthorised occupants) Act,1976: 
State of Assam-Government waste /and-Right of entry into posses-
sion-Necessary conditions under Rule 16-Rule 16 held mandat01y-Any 
person who enters into possession otherwise than pursuant to Rule 16 is 
D encroacher and tress passer-Such a person is liable to ejectment under rule 
!~Right of Mauzdars to collect Touzi of miscellaneous land revenue-Held 
Mauzdar is a local revenue collection agent of Government for collecting 
Revenue from a person who has lawfully entered into possession-He has no 
power to collect revenue from a tresspasser nor does it bind the Govem-
menl'-Administrative instructions issued to the Mauzdars for revenue col/ec-
E tion do not override the statutory regulations and rules. 
Administrative Law-Executive instructions cannot override statutory 
provisions. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4484 Of 
F 19% Etc. 
G 
From Judgment and Order dated 26.3.93 of the Assam High Court 
in C.R. No.1243 of 1987. 
S.N. Chowdhary, S.A. Syed for the Appellants. 
P.K.Goswami, Rajiv Mehta, Kailash Vasdev and Sanjay Parikh for 
the Respondents. 
The following order of the Court was delivered : 
H 
Leave granted. 
178 
l 
r 
STATEv. RADHAKANOO 
179 
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Though the A 
respondents have been served they are not appearing either in person or 
through counsel. However, we have taken the assistance of Shri P.K. 
Goswami, learned senior counsel wno has rich experience in this branch 
of law in the State of Assam. The only question is: whether the respondents 
have acquired any right in the land in encroachment Case No.5/83 and B 
57/86? Proceedings in the said case were quashed by the Guwahati High 
Court in Civil Rule No.1243/87 by judgment dated March 26, 1993 which 
is being followed in all other cases. The High Court has held that the 
respondents are not encroachers. Touzi Hahira Revenue is not a panel 
rental but the respondents having been found in possession of the land they 
cannot be ejected under Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules except after due C 
ejectment in accordance with the law. The question, therefore, is: whether 
the view of the High Court is correct in law? 
Shri Goswami contends that when mauzadar collects the rent from 
the occupants it is a collection within the meaning of Rule 39 of the 
Executive instructions. The mauzadar, as contemplated under Rule 122 of D 
the instructions, is enjoined to keep an account of collections and to 
deposit the same in the treasury once in four months. On the collections 
so made, the persons are entitled to remain in occupation until they are 
either confirmed with the lease or duly ejected in accordance with the law. 
The question,. therefore, is: what is the status the respondents acquired E 
under the regulation, the rules or the instructions read together? It is seen 
that Regulation 3(b) of Assam Land and Revenue Regulation (for short, 
the 'regulation' defines an 'Estate'to include :-
"(1) any land subject, either immediately or prospectively, to the 
payment of land revenue for the discharge of which a separate 
engagement has been entered into. Section 12 of the Regulations 
gives power to the State to make regulations:-
(i) for disposal by way of grant, lease or otherwise of such 
land, 
(ii) the ejectment of any person who has entered into un-
authorised occupation of such land, and 
(iii) the disposal of any crop raised, or any building or other 
F 
G 
construction erected without authority on such land." 
H 
A 
B 
180 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1996] 3 S.C.R. 
Rule 16 of the Rules framed under the Regulation prescribes that 
lease shall be issued on written application only, and no person shall enter 
into possession of waste land in any area until a lease has been issued to 
him or otherwise a written permission by Deputy commissioner has been 
granted to him, pending issue of such lease, to enter into possession. Rule 
17 imposes liability lo pay revenue on such settlement. Rule 17(A) gives 
power to the Deputy Commissioner to increase or reduce at any time, 
either on an application or of his own, the revenue in proportion to the 
change in area of the lease as a result of gain by al

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.