SWAMI NATH CHOUHAN AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 548 · Decided: 18-12-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI, ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SWAMI NATH CHOUHAN AND ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 18, 2002 
B 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, Jt.] 
Assam Settlement Rules : 
C 
r.18-land acquired by Union of India for defence purposes-later, 
land rec01weyed to landowner hut possession not delivered-Notice under 
r.18 issued to respondents 5 to 7-Suit filed by R.5 to R.7 for declaration of 
their tenancy of suit land contending that they were tenants protected under 
s.5 of Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955-Suit and 
appeal dismissed-RS to R7 held to be encroachers-Again notice under r. 
D 18 issued to them-Notice quashed in writ petition-However, writ appeal 
of Union .of India allowed by Division Bench of High Court upholding the 
notice-Held, r. I 8 empowers the Government to evict any person from land 
over which no person has acquired right of a proprietor, land holder or 
settlement holder-Suit land was not so acquired-Ejectment of appellants 
u/r. 18 is under due process of /aw-There is no illegality in the order of 
E Division Bench of High Court-Appeal dismissed-Assam land and Revenue 
Regulations, 1886-Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 
1955-s5. 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURfSDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8549 of 1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.11.1993 of the Gauhati High 
Court in Writ Appeal No. 45 of 1993. 
Manoj Saxena and Pravir Choudhary, for the Appellants. 
G 
V.K. Sidatharan, Rajiv Mehta and Mrs. Rekha Pandey for B.V.B. Das, for 
H 
the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
The appellants claimed to bl:. the tenants of land measuring 4 Bighas, 
548 
SWAMI NATH CHOUHAN v. U.0.1. 
549 
4 Kathas and 15 Lechas at Hukanpukhuri (for short, 'the suit land'). The suit A 
land originally belonged to the faiher of respondents 5 to 7. In 1943, the first 
respondent (Union of India) acquired the suit land for defence purposes. The 
case of the appellants is that they entered into agreement of lease of the suit 
land with respondents 5 to 7 in 1947. However, on September 17, 1976, the 
first respondent reconveyed the suit land in favour of respondents 5 to 7 but B 
did not hand over the possession to the said respondents. Perhaps for that 
reason, the 4th respondent issued ejectment notice against the appellants 
under rule 18 of the Assam Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land 
and Revenue Regulations, 1886. While so, the appellants filed suit-T.S. No. 
I 11178--0n the file of Munsiff No. I, Tinsukhia for declaration of their 
tenancy of the suit land and confirmation of possession over it. The trial court C 
decreed the suit in favour of the appellants on June 4, 1985. Aggrieved by 
judgment and decree of the trial court, the first respondent filed an appeal-
T.A. No. 77/86-before the A.dditional District Judge, Tinsukhia. On December 
21, 1987, the learned Additional District Judge partly allowed.the appeal and 
held that the appellants herein were not tenants but encroachers and that D 
they could be evicted by due process of law. That judgment was assailed 
unsuccessfully by respondents 5 to 7 in Second Appeal No. 67/88 before the 
High Court. After dismissal of the second appeal on July 20, I 988, fresh 
proceedings were initiated against the appellants by the State Government 
under Rule 18 of the Assam Settlement Rules. The notice issued by the State E 
Government (Respondents 2 to 4) on June 19, 1992 was assailed by the 
appellants in writ petition-C.R. No. 1912/92-before the High Court of ASsam. 
A learned single Judge of the High Court quashed the impugned notice and 
allowed the writ petition on February 18, 1993. Respondents 5 to 7 carried the 
matter before a Division bench in Writ Appeal No.45/93. The Division Bench 
allowed the writ appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge F 
and upheld the validity of the impugned notice dated June 19, 1992. That 
judgment and order of the Division Bench is under challenge in this appeal. 
Mr. Manoj Saxena, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, 
vehemently contends that the appellants are protected under section 5 of the G 
Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955, therefore, they 
cannot be evicted by issuing_ notice under rule 18 of the Settlement Rules. A 
perusal of the said provision shows that it protects tenants from eviction. To 
claim the protection of the said section, the appellants must show that they 
are the tenants. There are more reasons than one to 

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