Revenue Authorities Cannot Evict Encroachers from Private Tea Garden Land Under Rule 18 of Settlement Rules, Holds Gauhati High Court

Gauhati High Court dismisses tea company's writ petition but holds that Rule 18 of Assam Settlement Rules is confined to government and public-category lands, not private proprietary land, and preserves the company's right to approach a civil court.

The Gauhati High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Dhunseri Tea and Industries Ltd (formerly Tezpore Tea Company Ltd) seeking to compel revenue authorities to evict 52 private individuals who had encroached upon approximately 216 bighas of tea garden land in Darrang, Assam. Justice Devashis Baruah, sitting singly, held that the power of ejectment conferred by Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 does not extend to private proprietary land. Once land is recorded in a private owner's name, revenue authorities lose jurisdiction to interfere in what becomes a dispute between private parties. The judgment, pronounced on 13 July 2026, also clarifies that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will protect the company if it chooses to file a civil suit, with the period of the writ petition — from 18 April 2018 till date — excluded from the limitation computation.

A Decades-Long Revenue Dispute over Bahipukhuri Tea Estate

The roots of the dispute stretch back to ceiling proceedings initiated against Tezpore Tea Company Ltd under the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1956. During those proceedings, 277 bighas 2 kathas 3 lechas of land belonging to Bahipukhuri Tea Estate in Mazbat Revenue Circle was inadvertently shown as excess land. The company maintained it had in fact surrendered far less — 216 bighas 4 kathas 5 lechas.

After the company's representation went unheeded, it approached the Gauhati High Court in Civil Rule No. 4866/1991. A Division Bench, by order dated 05 May 1992, directed the concerned authorities to decide the representation within four months after hearing the company. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Darrang, Mangaldai acted on that direction on 17 November 1992, finding that the actual excess land handed over by the tea estate was 216 bighas 4 kathas 5 lechas, not 277 bighas 2 kathas 3 lechas. The officer directed that the area covered by Dag No. 8 of Village No. 2, Bahipukhuri Bagicha be registered in favour of Bahipukhuri Tea Estate and that records of rights be corrected. By 24 May 1993, the record of rights was corrected to reflect 216 bighas 0 kathas 16 lechas in the company's name.

Steps were then taken by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Udalguri with the Circle Officer, Mazbat Revenue Circle to carry out eviction and hand possession to the Manager of Bahipukhuri Tea Estate. Notices were issued under Rule 18(3) of the Settlement Rules. At that stage, however, an organisation called Bahipukhuri Bagan Jana Kalyan Samiti filed Civil Rule No. 2915/1993 before this Court, and interim orders staying the eviction proceedings were passed.

The matter was further complicated when a Coordinate Bench, by order dated 12 February 2001 in Civil Rule No. 2423/1993, directed Respondents 2, 3 and 4 to dispose of Land Ceiling Case No. 12/71-72. Justice Baruah observed that this direction was, with great respect, one that could not have been passed — the ceiling case had already been disposed of even before the Division Bench order in Civil Rule No. 4866/1991. Nonetheless, acting on the 2001 direction, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Udalguri passed the impugned order on 31 May 2013, fully 12 years later. That order reiterated the findings of 17 November 1992 but declined to initiate proceedings under Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules, reasoning that the land was private patta land of the petitioner company.

Aggrieved, Dhunseri Tea and Industries Ltd (which had since acquired the tea estate) and its Company Secretary filed WP(C)/959/2018 before the Gauhati High Court, challenging the order of 31 May 2013 and seeking compelled eviction of Respondent Nos. 6 to 58 — 52 named individuals, all described as being in possession of Dag No. 8 of Village No. 2, Bahipukhuri Tea Garden under Orang Mouza in Mazbat Revenue Circle.

The Scope of Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules

The central legal question before Justice Baruah was whether the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Udalguri was justified in refusing to exercise jurisdiction under Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules to evict the encroachers.

Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules, framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, confers power on the Deputy Commissioner to eject any person from land over which no person has acquired rights of proprietor, landholder, or settlement holder. Sub-Rule (2) specifies the categories of land to which this power applies:

• Lands previously reserved for roads;
• Lands previously reserved for roadside purposes;
• Lands previously reserved for grazing of village cattle;
• Lands reserved for other public purposes;
• Lands upon which a person has entered into possession from which he has been excluded by general or special order;
• Government khas lands;
• Waste lands; and
• Estates over which no person has acquired the right of a proprietor, landholder, or settlement holder.

Mr. D. Das, Senior Counsel for the petitioners, argued that possession of vacant land belonging to the company was taken by revenue authorities on the basis that it was ceiling surplus land, and therefore those authorities bore a duty to restore clear and unencumbered possession of 216 bighas 4 kathas 5 lechas. Since the authorities had themselves allowed private individuals to enter the land and since the encroachers had raised constructions, the petitioners contended that the situation was entirely of the Revenue Authorities' making.

Mr. R. Borpujari, Standing Counsel for the Revenue Department, countered that Rule 18 jurisdiction is expressly limited to the categories of land in Sub-Rule (2), none of which covers private proprietary land. He added that the petitioners had known since 1992 and 1993 that encroachments existed and ought to have pursued available civil remedies rather than insisting on executive action through writ proceedings.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Baruah held that the nature of the lands listed in Rule 18(2) makes it plain that land belonging to a proprietor, landholder, or settlement holder falls outside the rule's ambit entirely. The petitioner company's land, once recorded in its name pursuant to the 1992 order, became private proprietary land. Any encroachment upon it became a purely private dispute between the company and the encroachers.

The Court gave an additional textual reason. Rule 18(3)(a) empowers the Deputy Commissioner, while ordering ejectment, to also confiscate or destroy any crops raised or buildings and constructions erected. If private land were brought within Rule 18, the consequence would be that the Deputy Commissioner could confiscate or destroy crops and buildings standing on land that does not belong to the State — a result the provision plainly does not contemplate. Extending Rule 18 to private land would also effectively authorise revenue authorities to adjudicate civil disputes between private parties, which lies outside their jurisdiction.

Justice Baruah also made a pointed observation about the procedural history. Once the land was recorded in the petitioner's name on the basis of the 1992 order, “the jurisdiction of the Revenue Authorities to interfere/intermeddle with the possession of the lands stood ousted.” The earlier direction in the 2001 order to re-open Land Ceiling Case No. 12/71-72 could not, therefore, revive any jurisdiction over the private land.

The Court equally noted that even though eviction notices were issued under Rule 18(3) in 1993, those proceedings were stayed by interim orders at the instance of the Bahipukhuri Bagan Jana Kalyan Samiti, and 12 years elapsed before the impugned order of 31 May 2013 was passed. On the merits, however, the 2013 order was correct in declining Rule 18 jurisdiction over private land.

Section 14 of the Limitation Act and the Path to Civil Court

While dismissing the writ petition, the Court took care to protect the petitioner company's ability to seek redress through the civil courts. Justice Baruah observed that the petitioners had been litigating bona fide before this Court, proceeding on the reasonable assumption that the High Court had jurisdiction to grant the relief sought. Having now held that revenue authorities lack jurisdiction and that the appropriate remedy lies before a civil court, the Court directed that the petitioners would be entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Section 14 of the Limitation Act allows a court to exclude from the limitation period the time spent prosecuting a proceeding in good faith in a forum that lacked jurisdiction. Justice Baruah held that the period from 18 April 2018 — the date of filing of WP(C)/959/2018 — until the date of this judgment shall be excluded while computing the period of limitation for any proceedings the petitioner company may file before a competent civil court.

Outcome

WP(C)/959/2018 was dismissed. The Court found no ground to interfere with the order dated 31 May 2013 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Udalguri. No costs were awarded. The petitioners were left at liberty to approach the appropriate civil court of competent jurisdiction, with the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for the duration of the writ petition proceedings.