Allottee Retains Right And Title Over Government-Allotted Land Transferred Through Passbook Issuance Till Cancellation: Gauhati High Court
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Gauhati High Court, Single Bench of Justice Anjan Moni Kalita dismissed a second appeal arising from a land dispute over a government-allotted plot at Prem Nagar, Naharlagun, thereby affirming the first appellate court’s decree in favour of the original plaintiff. The Court held that when government land is allotted and subsequently transferred with approval, reflected through issuance of a Land Pass-Book, the transferee continues to hold right and title over the land unless the competent authority cancels or withdraws the allotment. The dispute concerned allegations that the original defendant encroached upon part of the allotted land by raising permanent structures, and the judgment confirms the plaintiff’s entitlement to protection of possession under the subsisting allotment.
The dispute arose from an injunction suit filed by the respondent seeking to restrain the appellant from alleged encroachment on Government-allotted land measuring 374 sq. mtrs at Prem Nagar, B Sector, Naharlagun.
The respondent stated that in 2005 she purchased the land from the appellant, later discovering that it was Government-allotted to his ex-wife, following which a gift deed was executed in her favour. She obtained formal approval for transfer from the competent authority and was issued a Government Land Passbook. She asserted that she remained in peaceful possession and had constructed an Assam-type house, later alleging that the appellant forcibly encroached on the land, set up structures, and threatened tenants.
The appellant denied sale, alleged forgery of documents, challenged the validity of the gift deed, and asserted his own long-standing possession, including subsequent allotment of 76 sq. mtrs. He filed a cross-suit seeking to declare the gift deed, sale agreement, and allotment as null and void. The Trial Court dismissed the respondent’s suit; however, the First Appellate Court reversed the findings and granted relief to the respondent. The appellant filed the present second appeal raising substantial questions of law relating to maintainability, title, possession, and legal effect of a Government Land Passbook.
The Court recorded that “the first Appellate Court has already come to a clear cut finding that the respondent was in possession of the land allotted by the Government after following the due process for approval.” It further noted that “this Court is not required to enter into a fact finding mission” when such findings already exist.
The Court examined the evidence and stated that “it is seen that the Department of Land Management, Government of Arunachal Pradesh approved the application of the respondent for transfer… and the Government Land allotment Pass-Book… was issued in favour of the respondent.” It also recorded that the appellant “did not raise any complaint, whatsoever, against such allotment of land to the respondent.”
The Court observed that tenants had vacated due to threats, noting that “PW 1 to 5 have specifically stated… that they vacated… as the same was forcibly occupied by the appellant.” It concluded that “the respondent was, in fact, in possession of the aforesaid 374.5 sq. mtrs of land.”
Regarding injunction maintainability, the Court stated that the precedents relied on by the appellant do not apply because “from the materials brought on record, it is apparent that the respondent was in fact in possession.” As such, “since there is no admitted dispute as far as her right, title and possession… the aforesaid case laws… shall not be applicable.”
On the legal status of a Government Land Passbook, the Court examined statutory rules and recorded that “the allotted land can be transferred by the allottee/lessee with the prior consent in writing from the competent authority.” It further held that “the respondent shall have the right and title over the aforesaid land until the same is cancelled or withdrawn by the competent authority of the Government.” The Court directly stated that “this is not agreeable that the Land Pass-Book is only for the purpose of payment of revenue… and not for the purpose of conferring any right, title over the allotted land.”
The Court affirmed that Passbook allotment is not equivalent to entries in Jamabandi, Patta, or Khata, noting that “the Land Pass-Book allotted in the instant case cannot be equated” with such documents.
The Court recorded that “the substantial question of law no. 2 is answered positive to the effect that allotment of Government land by issuing a Pass-Book confers or creates absolute title in favour of the allottee.” It further stated that “the question as to whether allotment/Pass-Book is a mutation certificate or entry in records or mere mutation of land for payment of land premium and rent is answered in negative.” The Court also stated that “the substantial questions of law nos. 1 & 3 are answered in negative and in favour of the respondent.”
With regard to the judgment under challenge, the Court directed: “In view of the aforesaid findings arrived at by this Court, I do not find any reason to interfere with the Judgment and Order dated 09.09.2024 and Decree dated 16.10.2024 passed by the District Judge, Yupia in Appeal No. 03/2023. With the aforesaid, the instant RSA is dismissed and disposed of.”
Advocates Representing The Parties
For the Petitioner: Muk Pertin, Senior Advocate; Mukbom Pertin; Dusu Rillung; Tshering Yangzom Bhutia; Dakjum Riba; Rimo Riba; Karyom Dabi.
For the Respondent: Puto Bui; K Gao; Honi Tana Tara; K Chotton; Oken Duggong; Nikita Danggen; Tashap Nima.
Case Title: Dabin Soki @ Tabin Soki vs. Smti. Yama Yekar
Neutral Citation: 2025: GAU-AP:1266
Case Number: RSA/4/2024
Bench: Justice Anjan Moni Kalita
