A.H. Saikia, J.
1. In both these Civil Rules the respective Writ Petitioners mainly challenged the allotment of ceiling surplus land by the State-Respondents in favour of private respondents arrayed in these writ petitions seeking a direction from this Court for quashing of those allotments with a further direction restraining the private respondents from making any construction over the so allotted land in question. Since the question of law based on almost identical facts involved in these writ petitioners are similar, I propose to hear these writ petitions analogously and dispose of the same by this common order.
2. Heard Mr. P.C. Deka, learned sr. counsel, Mr. M.K. Choudhury and Mr. N. Dutta, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.S. Bhattacharyya, Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, Mr. C. Choudhury, Mr. J. Roy and Mr. K. Paul, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private Respondents. Also heard Mr. A.C. Buragohain, learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State Respondents.
3. I have also heard Mr. A.K. Phukan, learned Advocate General who has been requested to assist the Court in proper interpretation of the Land Policy of the Government.
4. The Facts in CR No. 2568/92 in brief, are that the petitioners are the owners of the land in question which they purchased in the year 1984 from the proforma Respondent No. 10, Sri Bhaba Deb Sarma. A new patta being K.P. Patta No. 594 was issued in favour of their vendor Sri Bhaba Deb Sarma for a period from 1.4.1986 to 31.3.2001 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). While the land has been possessed and occupied by the petitioners it was found that in the early part of November, 1992 the private respondents started fill up the land. On enquiry and on being asked, the petitioners were surprised to learn that by impugned order dated 8.5.1992 the Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Revenue Department, Dispur in connection with ULC 343/76 under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (herein-after referred to as 'the Act') allowed different areas of the petitioners' land to the private respondents. It is contended that they tried to obtain the copy of the order dated 8.5.1992 but due to the pressure of the private respondents, who are influential persons exercising the official powers, the petitioners could not obtain the copies of the respective orders for which those were not annexed to this writ petition.
5. In other writ petition, i.e., CR No. 459/93 the writ petitioners being an Association has also challenged such allotments of the acquired land to the private respondents on the ground that notwithstanding their repeated requests to the Government for allotment of land which has been needed acutely in order to promote cultural and creative activities of the Association, ignoring their prayer, the Government land in question has been allotted to the private respondents who are none but certain Government Officials as well as close relatives of Official mandarin.
6. The private respondents contested both the Civil Rules filing their respective affidavits. Thought no return has been filed by the State Respondents, some relevant records have been placed before this Court at the time of hearing of the case.
7. Raising the preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of the writ petitions it is pleaded on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the allotments of the lands which have already been duly acquired by the Government under the Act and it is only after acquisition, the same has been duly allotted to the private respondents being the landless persons in accordance with the provisions of Sections 23 and 24 of the Act. It is also stated that the Government of Assam has framed a Land Policy, i.e., Land Policy of 1989 which is in vogue and within the competence of the said Land Policy, the present allotments have made. Moreso, the validity of the present Land Policy has not been questioned. It is contended that without having challenged the said Land Policy,' the present petitioners have no legal right to challenge the allotment of the said land to the private respondents and accordingly no reliefs as prayed for, be granted to them.
8. Mr. A.K. Phukan, the learned Advocate General has sated that the said Land Policy has been framed within the competence of the Government and the same is in conformity with the Act. All the allotments of the Government land whatsoever in the State of Assam have done in accordance with the said Land Policy being presently in force.
9. I have carefully perused the pleadings of the parties in both the writ petitions and the materials available on records and also have given my anxious consideration to the submissions on behalf of the rival parties.
10. It appears from the records made available in CR No. 2568/92 that the petitioners purchased the land by execution of Sale Deed dated 12.11.1984 but Ceiling Case being No. ULC 343/76 has been commenced long back in the year 1976. Notification under Section 10(1) of the Act regarding proposed acquisition of land in question belonging to Sri Bhabadeb Sarma, the original owner of the petitioners, proforma respondent No. 10, and thereby inviting the claims from all the interested persons in the said land, was issued on 16.5.1984 which was published in the Assam Gazette on 27th June, 1984. The said Notification is quoted hereunder :-
'....Assam Gazette, 27th June, 1984 The 16th May, 1984
Whereas the Land specified in the Schedule below belonging to Sri Bhabadev Sarma, resident of Assam Government Press, Bamunimaidan has been determined as the vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit prescribed under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and that the said land is to be acquired by the State Government under the provisions of the said Act.
All persons Interested in such land may make their claims personally or by their agents giving particulars of the nature of their interest in such land within 39 days from the date of publication of the notification in the Gazette.
SCHEDULES.N.
Mouza
Village Ulubari
Patta No.
Dag No.
AreaSq.M.1.
Ulubari
Ulubari
493
1008
7706.88
town
1011
-
New town
665
498
274.60
Saranl
Total
7981.48 Sq.Mtrs.'
Thereafter, the final Notification declaring the land in question belonging to the proforma respondent No. 10 as excess vacant land and acquiring the same by the Government U/S 10(3) of the Act was issued on 1.1.1987 and the same was published in Assam Gazette published on 11th February, 1987 is also quoted hereunder :-
'The Assam Gazette 11th February, 1987
The 1st January, 1987 Ref:-U.L.C. Case No. 343/76
Whereas the land specified in the Schedule below belonging to Shri Bhabadeb Sarma, Assam Government Press Road, Guwahati, has been declared as excess vacant land and the said land shall be deemed to have been acquired by the State Government Under Section 10(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 with effect from the date of publication of this notification.
SCHEDULES.N.
Mouza
Village
Pattal
Dag No
Area Sq.M.1.
Ulubari
Ulubari
493
1008
7706.88
town
1011
2.
-
New town
685
498
274.60
Total
7981.4 Sq. Mtrs.'
Be it noted that in the aforesaid Notification dated 1.1.1987 the Land Ceiling Case being ULC 343/76 had been referred. After going through the Notifications above mentioned, it becomes abundantly clear that during the period between the proposed acquisition and the final acquisition of the land in question, the Sale Deed dated 12.11.1984 was executed in favour of the writ petitioners in CR No. 2568/92 which was manifestly void and contrary to the law More importantly nothing has come on record that the original pattadar proforma respondent No. 10 has ever made any objection or claim pursuant to the Notification dated 16.5.1984. Therefore, the land in dispute has been legally vested upon the Government by operation of law and the claims of the writ petitioners in C.R. No. 2568/92 cannot subsist.
11. It is seen that the land in question had been allotted to the private respondents as per Land Policy which has not been challenged before this Court. It also appears that the Ceiling proceeding has also not been challenged in this writ petitions; so much so the writ petitioners have challenged in the present petition the order of settlement dated 8.5.1992 only, that too without annexing the same.
12. Situated thus, I am of the considered view that since the land in question has already been duly acquired by the Government under the provisions of the Act and in conformity without (sic) existing Land Policy of the Government, the writ petitioner have no judicially enforceable right to challenge the impugned allotments of that surplus Ceiling Land in favour of the private respondents. By such allotments no substantive rights of the petitioners have ever been infringed. Further unless it is a public interest litigation, the Court is not needed to decide an issue which has not been specifically raised in the pleadings inasmuch as in the instant case, the Land Policy as such has, as already noticed, not been specifically challenged but only the individual actions have been agitated. Be it noted that though it is settled that the powers of the High Court under Article 226 are discretionary and no limits can be placed upon that discretion, it must be exercised along recognised lines and subject to certain self- imposed limitations as a matter of prudence and policy. The gamut of entire situation does not call for exercise of such discretionary power under writ jurisdiction of this Court and consequently, I am disinclined to entertain these writ petitions. Since the matter has been decided taking on the preliminary issue of maintainability, the contentions on merit advanced on behalf of the petitioners, need not detain this Court any further.
13. As regards the prayer of the writ petitioner in C.R. No. 459/93, it is the wisdom and domain of the Government to allot Government land as per the Land Policy above referred and accordingly the Association/Writ petitioners may approach the competent authority to consider their case for allotment of land, if so advised.
14. For the reason, discussion and observations indicated above, both the writ petitioner stands dismissed. However I pass no order as to costs.