Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/33 vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 27 November, 2025
Page No.# 1/33
GAHC010220102025
2025:GAU-AS:16145-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/311/2025
SRI MONMIL BORO AND 7 ORS
SON OF LATE RAMCHARAN BORO,
2: SMTI SHANTI DEVI
W/O HARINDER RAY
3: SOVIT PURBEY
S/O LATE RAMBILASH PURBEY
4: SMTI SUMAN DEVI
W/O AKALU GUPTA
5: LALIT KAMAT
S/O KAPLESWAR KAMAT
6: HARI PRASAD
S/O RAMDAS PRASAD.
7: DINESH KAMAT
S/O KAPLESWAR KAMAT.
8: SMTI NEERA GUPTA
W/O SRI BINOD KUMAR GUPTA
ALL ARE R/O VILL. ULUBARI (BIRUBARI)
Page No.# 2/33
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR NAGAR
MOUZA ULUBARI
P.S. PALTAN BAZAR
DIST. KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REP BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
REVENUE DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006
2:THE DIST. COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP (M)
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI 781036
ASSAM.
3:THE CO DIST. COMMISSIONER
NEW GUWAHATI CO DIST. KAMRUP (M)
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI 781036
ASSAM.
4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI 78100
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N N B CHOUDHURY, MR. K KASHYAP
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM,
Linked Case : WA/319/2025
SRI RINKU DAS
SON OF LATE RANABIR DAS
RESIDENT OF ULUBARI BIRUBARI
MOUZA ULUBARI
PS PALTAN BAZAR
Page No.# 3/33
DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
PIN 781007
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT
OF ASSAM
REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI
DISTRICT KAMRUP M
ASSAM
PIN 781006
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
HENGRABARI ROAD
LICHUBAGAN
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI
DISTRICT KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
PIN 781036
3:THE CO DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
NEW GUWAHATI CO DISTRICT
HENGRABARI ROAD
LICHUBAGAN
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI
DISTRICT KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
PIN 781036
4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI
DISTRICT KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
PIN 781007
------------
Advocate for : MR. T DEURI
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
Page No.# 4/33
Linked Case : WA/312/2025
TUTUMONI HAZARIKA
W/O MRINAL HAZARIKA
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ULUBARI
BIRUBARI
DR BR AMBEDKAR NAGAR
MOUZA ULUBARI
PS PALTAN BAZAR
DISTRICT KAMRUP M
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT
OF ASSAM
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI 781006
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP M
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI 781036
ASSAM
3:THE CO DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
NEW GUWAHATI
CO DISTRICT
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI 781036
ASSAM
4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI 781007
------------
Advocate for : MD. A MATLIB
Advocate for : SC
REVENUE appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
Page No.# 5/33
Linked Case : WA/325/2025
SMTI MANJU DEVI
W/O LATE DILIP SINGH
R/O OF VILLAGE - ULUBARI BIRUBARI
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR NAGAR
MOUZA-ULUBARI
P.S. PALTAN BAZAR
DIST. KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI 781006.
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP M
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI-781036
ASSAM.
3:THE CO DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
NEW GUWAHATI CO-DISTRICT
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI - 781036
ASSAM
4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI-781007.
------------
Advocate for : MD. A MATLIB
Advocate for : SC
REVENUE appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
Linked Case : WA/320/2025
SRI DUKHAHARAN RAUT
Page No.# 6/33
RESIDENT OF ULUBARI BIRUBARI
MOUZA ULUBARI
PS PALTAN BAZAR
DISTRICT KAMRUP M
ASSAM
PIN 781007
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT
OF ASSAM
REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI
DISTRICT KAMRUP M
ASSAM
PIN 781006
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
HENGRABARI ROAD
LICHUBAGAN
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI
DISTRICT KAMRUP M
ASSAM
PIN 781036
3:THE CO DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
NEW GUWAHATI CO DISTRICT
HENGRABARI ROAD
LICHUBAGAN
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI
DISTRICT KAMRUP M
ASSAM
PIN 781036
4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI
DISTRICT KAMRUP M
ASSAM
PIN 781007
------------
Advocate for : MR. T DEORI
Page No.# 7/33
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
Linked Case : WA/321/2025
SMTI KONJENBAM ANJALI DEVI
S/O- LATE K HEMANTA SINGH
RESIDENT OF ULUBARI
BIRUBARI
MOUZA ULUBARI
P.S- PALTAN BAZAR
DISTRICT-KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM
PIN 781007
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT
OF ASSAM
REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI
DISTRICT KAMRUP M
ASSAM
PIN 781006
5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
HENGRABARI ROAD
LICHUBAGAN
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI
DISTRICT KAMRUP M
ASSAM
PIN 781036
6:THE CO DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
NEW GUWAHATI CO DISTRICT
HENGRABARI ROAD
LICHUBAGAN
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI
DISTRICT KAMRUP M
ASSAM
Page No.# 8/33
PIN 781036
7:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI
DISTRICT KAMRUP M
ASSAM
PIN 781007
------------
Advocate for : MS. L WANGSA
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM
Linked Case : WA/330/2025
SRI ARUN MONDAL
S/O LATE HARADHAN MONDAL
R/O OF VILLAGE - ULUBARI BIRUBARI
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR NAGAR
MOUZA-ULUBARI
P.S. PALTAN BAZAR
DIST. KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI 781006.
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP M
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI-781036
ASSAM.
3:THE CO DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
NEW GUWAHATI CO-DISTRICT
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI - 781036
ASSAM
Page No.# 9/33
4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI-781007.
------------
Advocate for : MD. A MATLIB
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
Linked Case : WA/317/2025
SRI SANJAY KUMAR BHURA
S/O LATE SHANTILAL BHURA
RESIDENT OF ULUBARI
BIRUBARI
MOUZA ULUBARI
PS PALTAN BAZAR
DISTRICT KAMRUP M
ASSAM
PIN 781007
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT
OF ASSAM
REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI
DISTRICT KAMRUP M
ASSAM
PIN 781006
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP M
HENGRABARI ROAD
LICHUBAGAN
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI
PIN 781036
3:THE CO DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
NEW GUWAHATI
CO DISTRICT
Page No.# 10/33
HENGRABARI ROAD
LICHUBAGAN
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI
DISTRICT KAMRUP M
ASSAM
PIN 781036
4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI
DISTRICT KAMRUP M
ASSAM
PIN 781007
------------
Advocate for : MR. T DEURI
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
Linked Case : WA/316/2025
POTSHANGBAM KHONI CHAOBA MEETEI
S/O P PISHAK MEETEI
RESIDENT OF ULUBARI BIRUBARI
MOUZA ULUBARI
PS PALTAN BAZAR
DISTRICT KAMRUP M
ASSAM
PIN 781007
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT
OF ASSAM
REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI
DISTRICT KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
PIN 781006
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
HENGRABARI ROAD
Page No.# 11/33
LICHUBAGAN
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI
DISTRICT KAMRUP M
ASSAM
PIN 781036
3:THE CO DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
NEW GUWAHATI CO DISTRICT
HENGRABARI ROAD
LICHUBAGAN
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI
DISTRICT KAMRUP M
ASSAM
PIN 781036
4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI
DISTRICT KAMRUP M
ASSAM
PIN 781007
------------
Advocate for : MR. T DEURI
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
Linked Case : WA/313/2025
SRI PANCHAM ROY
SON OF LATE BALDEV ROY ULUBARI BIRUBARI
MOUZA ULUBARI
PS PALTANBAZAR
DISTRICT KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM
PIN 781007
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF
ASSAM
REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPTT.
Page No.# 12/33
ADDRESS
DISUR
GUWAHATI
DIST. KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
PIN 781006
2:DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP METRO DISTRICT HENGRABARI ROAD
LICHUBAGAN
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI
DISTRICT KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM PIN 781036
3:THE CO DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
NEW GUWAHATI CO DISTRICT
ADDRESS HENGRABARI ROAD
LICHUBAGAN
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI
DIST. KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
PIN 781036
4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI DISTRICT KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM
PIN 781007
------------
Advocate for : MR. T R DEURI
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
Linked Case : WA/331/2025
NILIMA ROY
W/O LATE BIKRANT KUMAR ROY
R/O OF VILLAGE - ULUBARI BIRUBARI
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR MOUZA-ULUBARI
NAGAR
P.S. PALTAN BAZAR
DIST. KAMRUP M
ASSA.
Page No.# 13/33
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI 781006.
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP M
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI-781036
ASSAM.
3:THE CO-DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
NEW GUWAHATI CO-DISTRICT
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI - 781036
ASSAM
4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI-781007.
------------
Advocate for : MD. A MATLIB
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
Linked Case : WA/326/2025
MAYA RANI BANIA
W/O PRADIP KANU
R/O OF VILLAGE - ULUBARI BIRUBARI
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR NAGAR
MOUZA-ULUBARI
P.S. PALTAN BAZAR
DIST. KAMRUP M
ASSAM.
VERSUS
Page No.# 14/33
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI 781006.
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP M
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI-781036
ASSAM.
3:THE CO-DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
NEW GUWAHATI CO-DISTRICT
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI - 781036
ASSAM
4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI-781007.
------------
Advocate for : MD. A MATLIB
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
Linked Case : WA/315/2025
SRI BAKUL GHOSH
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ULUBARI BIRUBARI
DR BR AMBEDKAR NAGAR
MOUZA ULUBARI
PS PALTAN BAZAR
DISTRICT KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT
OF ASSAM
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
Page No.# 15/33
GUWAHATI 781006
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP M
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI 781036
ASSAM
3:THE CO DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
NEW GUWAHATI CO DISTRICT HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI 781036
ASSAM
4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI 781007
------------
Advocate for : MD. A MATLIB
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
Linked Case : WA/328/2025
SRI INDRA BISWAS
S/O LATE UPEN CH. BISWAS
R/O OF VILLAGE - ULUBARI BIRUBARI
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR NAGAR
MOUZA-ULUBARI
P.S. PALTAN BAZAR
DIST. KAMRUP M
ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI 781006.
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP M
HENGRABARI
Page No.# 16/33
GUWAHATI-781036
ASSAM.
3:THE CO DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
NEW GUWAHATI CO-DISTRICT
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI - 781036
ASSAM
4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI-781007.
------------
Advocate for : MD. A MATLIB
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
Linked Case : WA/332/2025
SRI SANKAR SINGH
S/O LATE RAMJEE SINGH
R/O OF VILLAGE - ULUBARI BIRUBARI
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR NAGAR
MOUZA-ULUBARI
P.S. PALTAN BAZAR DIST. KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM..
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI 781006.
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP M
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI-781036
ASSAM.
3:THE CO DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
NEW GUWAHATI CO-DISTRICT
Page No.# 17/33
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI - 781036
ASSAM
4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI-781007.
------------
Advocate for : MD. A MATLIB
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
Linked Case : WA/327/2025
JAY PRAKASH PRASAD
S/O LATE BISWANATH RAM
R/O OF VILLAGE - ULUBARI BIRUBARI
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR NAGAR
MOUZA-ULUBARI
P.S. PALTAN BAZAR
DIST. KAMRUP M
ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI 781006.
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP M
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI-781036
ASSAM.
3:THE CO-DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
NEW GUWAHATI CO-DISTRICT
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI - 781036
ASSAM
Page No.# 18/33
4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI-781007.
------------
Advocate for : MD. A MATLIB
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
Linked Case : WA/318/2025
BHUMIKA PATHAK MEDHI
W/O. LT. PARAMANDA MEDHI
RESIDENT OF ULUBARI BIRUBARI
MOUZA ULUBARI
PS PALTAN BAZAR
DISTRICT KAMRUP M
ASSAM
PIN 781007
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT
OF ASSAM
REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI
DISTRICT KAMRUP M
ASSAM
PIN 781006
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
HENGRABARI ROAD
LICHUBAGAN
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI
DISTRICT KAMRUP M
ASSAM
PIN 781036
3:THE CO DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
NEW GUWAHATI CO DISTRICT
HENGRABARI ROAD
LICHUBAGAN
Page No.# 19/33
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI
DISTRICT KAMRUP M
ASSAM
PIN 781036
4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI
DISTRICT KAMRUP M
ASSAM
PIN 781007
------------
Advocate for : MR. M J BHATTACHARYYA
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
Linked Case : WA/329/2025
SMTI SAROJ DEVI
W/O MITHILESH SINGH
R/O OF VILLAGE BIRUBARI
ULUBARI DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR NAGAR
MOUZA-ULUBARI
P.S. PALTAN BAZAR
DIST. KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI 781006.
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP M
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI-781036
ASSAM.
3:THE CO DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
Page No.# 20/33
NEW GUWAHATI CO-DISTRICT
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI - 781036
ASSAM
4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI-781007.
------------
Advocate for : MD. A MATLIB
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
Linked Case : WA/314/2025
KAILASH MAHASETH
S/O. LT. AWADH MAHASETH
RESIDENT OF ULUBARI BIRUBARI
MOUZA ULUBARI
PS PALTAN BAZAR
DISTRICT KAMRUP M
ASSAM
PIN 781007
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT
OF ASSAM
REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI
DISTRICT KAMRUP M
ASSAM
PIN 781006
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
HENGRABARI ROAD
LICHUBAGAN
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI
DISTRICT KAMRUP M
ASSAM
Page No.# 21/33
PIN 781036
3:THE CO DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
NEW GUWAHATI CO-DISTRICT
HENGRABARI ROAD
LICHUBAGAN
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI
DISTRICT KAMRUP M
ASSAM
PIN 781036
4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI
DISTRICT KAMRUP M
ASSAM
PIN 781007
------------
Advocate for : MR. T DEURI
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
For the Appellants : Mr. N.N.B. Choudhury, Advocate
Mr. S. Dutta, Sr. Advocate assisted by
Mr. R. Dhar, Advocate.
Mr. T. Deuri, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. D. Saikia, Advocate General, Assam, assisted
by Mr. R. Borpujari, Standing Counsel,
Revenue Department.
Date of Hearing : 07.11.2025
Date of Judgment : 27.11.2025
Page No.# 22/33
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
(A.D.Choudhury, J)
1. All these batches of appeals have been taken up together for consideration.
2. We have heard Mr. N. N. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant in Writ Appeal No.
311/2025; Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. R. Dhar, Advocate for the
appellants in Writ Appeal No.312/2025; Mr. T. Deuri, learned Advocate for the appellants in
W.A. No.313/2025; W.A. No.314/2025; W.A. No.316/2025; W.A. No.317/2025; W.A.
No.318/2025; W.A. No.319/2025; W.A. No.320/2025 and W.A. No.321/2025 and Mr. R. Dhar,
learned Advocate for the appellants in W.A. No.315/2025; W.A. No.325/2025; W.A.
No.326/2025; W.A. No.327/2025; W.A. No.328/2025; W.A. No.329/2025; W.A. No.330/2025;
W.A. No.331/2025 and W.A. No.332/2025. Also heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate
General, Assam, assisted by Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department
in a separate set of appeals.
3. All these appeals call into question the legality and validity of the common judgment and order
dated 18.09.2025 rendered by the learned Single Judge, upholding the eviction of the appellants
from the parcel of government land situated at Village: Ulubari, Mouza: Ulubari under
Guwahati Revenue Circle.
4. The appellants claim to be landless persons belonging to the economically weaker section
socially and indigenous people of Assam and contend that their occupation for more than three
decades over the plot of land was bonafide and that they are entitle to rehabilitation under the
Assam Land Policy, 2019 read with the Settlement Rules framed under Assam Land and
Revenue Regulation, 1886 (hereinafter referred to as Regulation, 1886).
5. The fact that the land in question is government land and is not in dispute. Initially, the same
was reserved for T.B. Hospital and subsequently for the establishment of a public hospital, is
also not disputed by the appellants, except appellant in WA No.311/2025, who claims that he is
occupying Govt. land under Dag No. 97, which is not reserved for the T.B. Hospital.
6. The Revenue Authority initiated the eviction proceeding in question by issuing notice under
Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules. Such Notices were challenged by the appellants herein by
Page No.# 23/33
filing separate and individual writ petitions.
7. The fundamental ground of the challenge was that the summary procedure of eviction under
Rule 18 of the Settlement rules cannot be resorted to against the appellants, given that they have
rights of settlement over the land under their occupation in terms of the Land Policy, 2019.
Thus, a bona fide claim of right is involved. Yet another ground was that the appellants were not
given reasonable opportunity of hearing.
8. A learned Single Judge, after taking note of the Land Policy, 2019 as well as the Settlement
Rules, concluded in its judgement and order dated 07.11.2024 passed in WP(C) No./3715/2020
and in the connected cases, that the appellants were issued notice to vacate the land forthwith,
without affording any opportunity to show cause and that the appellants have not been allowed
to explain as to whether they have any bona fide claim to the right involved.
9. Referring to the determination made in Salak Uddin -Vs- State of Assam reported in 2024 4
GauLT 857, the learned single Judge held that the notices issued to the petitioners shall be
construed as notices asking the petitioners to show cause as to why the petitioners should not be
evicted by taking recourse to Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules.
10. Accordingly, the appellants were given liberty to submit individual replies substantiating their
claim with documents and such evidence as deemed proper, thereby showing cause that the
petitioners have a bona fide claim of right in respect of the land under their occupation and,
therefore, that Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules is not applicable.
11. The Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M), was accordingly directed to give the appellants an
opportunity of hearing, either personally or through their authorised representative, and
thereafter to pass an appropriate speaking order. It was further provided that for a period of 30
days, no coercive measure should be taken to enable the appellants to avail themselves of
appropriate remedies permissible under law, in the event the appellants are aggrieved by such
speaking order.
12. Thereafter, the appellants filed their representations, and a speaking order dated 26.03.2025
was passed, by which their claims were rejected and, consequently, eviction notices were
issued.
13. Such speaking orders were challenged in the second batch of writ petitions before the learned
Single Judge in WP(C) No. 2128/2025 and the connected cases.
Page No.# 24/33
14. After hearing the learned counsel for the contesting parties and after perusal of the materials
available on record, the learned Single Judge concluded that the representation of the appellants
were duly considered and that based on such representation, an enquiry was carried out through
the Co-District Commissioner, and, accordingly, a report dated 19.03.2025 was prepared; the
District commissioner considered such report; the appellants were also given personal hearing
and their statement were also recorded.
15. The learned Single Judge recorded that there is a clear finding that the land in question is
government land reserved for the TB Hospital. The appellants were unlawfully occupying the
land; therefore, the applications filed by the appellants for settlement of the land in accordance
with the existing norms were found unacceptable and were accordingly rejected. Taking note of
the aforesaid undisputed fact, the writ petitions were dismissed by the Judgment under
challenge and the present batch of appeals is filed.
16. Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel as well as Mr. S. Deuri, learned counsel for the appellants
have confined their argument that as the land in question has already been reserved for
construction of a hospital, the appellants may not be entitled to settlement over the land under
their possession, however, in terms of Clause 14 of the Land Policy, 2019, more particularly,
under Clause 14.3 and Clause 14.4, the appellants being landless indigenous persons are entitled
to rehabilitation and, accordingly, this Court may direct for their rehabilitation and till such
rehabilitation is made, their dwelling houses should not be demolished. In support, Mr. Dutta,
learned Senior Counsel relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Olga Tellis -Vs-
Bombay municipal Corporation reported in AIR 1986 SC 180 and Sudama Singh & Ors -
Vs- Government of Delhi & Another reported in 2010 168 DLT 218.
17. Mr. N. N. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant in WA No. 311/2025, while
endorsing the aforesaid argument, further argues that the occupation of land by his client is
under Dag No. 97, which has never been reserved for the Hospital in question and for that
reason, similarly situated persons occupying part of Dag No. 97 have already been settled with
land. In support, he refers to the Minutes of the meeting held on 19.02.2022 in the Conference
Hall of the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup Metropolitan District, relating to
allotment of land for the Medical College wherein, Dag No. 97 is not incorporated. The learned
counsel, to buttress his argument, relies on the Settlement Order dated 03.01.2022, issued by the
Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup Metropolitan District, Guwahati, in favour of the other persons
Page No.# 25/33
who were settled land over Dag No. 97 and contends that the Deputy Commissioner in the said
order has clearly mentioned that Dag No. 97 is not allotted in the name of the Hospital.
According to him, his specific case pleaded in the writ petition was not dealt by the learned
Single Judge, inasmuch as, the only stand of the State respondents before the learned Single
Judge in this regard is that such settlement was wrongly granted and therefore, process of
cancellation shall be initiated was accepted, without giving any finding on the Deputy
Commissioner's order dated 03.01.2022 and 19.02.2022. It is also his argument that the
speaking order passed by the District Commissioner did not deal with such a bona fide claim of
his client.
18. Per contra Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam representing the State referring to
the pleadings made in each of the writ petitions, submits that on the face of the facts of the case
projected by the petitioners themselves, they are not eligible for settlement either under
Settlement Rules, or under Assam Land Policy, 2019 and therefore, at the behest of such
persons, a public project for construction of hospital cannot be stalled.
19. According to the learned Advocate General, the record clearly reveals that the petitioners are
not landless persons and they cannot claim even rehabilitation in terms of Assam Land Policy,
2019 in urban areas. According to him, some of the writ petitioners are not even indigenous
people to claim the right of settlement. The learned Advocate General, contends that there are
contemporaneous materials relied on by the writ petitioners themselves, which go to show that
the petitioners have lands in their native places and, therefore, are not entitled to settlement
within the Urban areas, more particularly within the city of Guwahati, under the Land Policy,
2019.
20. While countering the argument of Mr. N. N. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant in
WA No. 311/2025, the learned Advocate General, Assam submits that the Dag No. 97 had been
reserved for the Hospital and the authorities has wrongly settled the land in favour of some
persons under Dag No. 97 on misconception of facts and wrong interpretation of Order passed
by this High Court for consideration in writ petitions, filed by the said Settlees. Though this
Court directed the consideration of settlement for those persons, the authorities took it to be a
direction and accordingly settled the land in derogation of the Settlement Rules and the Land
Policy, 2019, and the State is proposing to cancel such patta by following due process of law.
Therefore, such erroneous order of settlement cannot confer right upon the petitioner for
Page No.# 26/33
settlement, which was clearly noted by the learned Single Judge in its impugned order, the
learned Advocate General concludes.
21. We have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties.
22. Before addressing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, let this Court, in brief,
consider the provisions of settlement of government land under the scheme of Regulations,
1886 and the Settlement rules framed thereunder; also, under the Assam Land Policy, 2019.
23. A bona fide claim, in the present context, may involve a bona fide claim of right for settlement
over Government khas land or waste land, as per the Settlement Rules and the Land Policy of
the Government of Assam.
24. The other lands (lands previously reserved for roads or roadside lands, or for grazing of village
cattle or for other public purposes or land where the occupant had entered into possession of
land, from which he has been excluded by general or special order), are outside the purview of
settlement. There may be various situations, where the disputes/bonafide claim is also raised in
respect of these lands, which may include disputes pertaining to the boundary of such land or
there may be disputes related to reservations or de-reservation land for grazing of village cattle/
for other public purpose or for that matter, there may be a dispute that the persons have been
granted settlement in respect of such a land even before being previously reserved for the
purpose etc.
25. Therefore, it will be necessary to delve into the relevant provision of the Regulation 1886 and
the Land Policy 2019.
26. Settlements are primarily dealt with under the Settlement Rules framed under Regulation
1886.
27. Settlement has been defined under the Rule as the leasing of land which is at the government's
disposal.
28. Chapter II of the Regulation, 1886, deals with rights over land. However, Section 4 under
Chapter-II, exempts from the purview of granting rights over land in respect of forests
constituted as reserve forests under any law for the time being in force, and any land that the
State Government may, by notification, exempt from the operation of Chapter-II.
29. Waste land is defined under the Settlement Rules to mean land at the disposal of the
Page No.# 27/33
government, which the government has not granted any lease or otherwise and which is not
included in a reserved forest or in a forest proposed to be reserved under Section 5 of the Assam
Forest Regulation, etc.
30. Rule 2 of the Settlement Rules vests power in the Deputy Commissioner to dispose of waste
land by grant, lease or otherwise in the manner and subject to the condition prescribed in the
Settlement Rules, with a further power to expressly reserve any such land from out of such
settlement.
31. The Deputy Commissioner, under Rule 3 of the Settlement Rules, can delegate his power, by
general or special order to any revenue officer within his jurisdiction, including the power to
receive applications for settlement.
32. Another important Settlement Rule is Rule 5. It stipulates that applications for the settlement of
waste land, or, for that matter, for the lease of waste land, shall be in writing and be presented to
the Deputy Commissioner or to such other Officers as may be empowered by the Deputy
Commissioner under Rule 3.
33. Rule 6 of the Settlement Rules visualises measurement and classification for purpose of
settlement and further mandates a report from the Land Record staff, briefly stating whether the
applicant belongs to any of the categories mentioned in Rule 8 and whether the land is available
for settlement and suitable for the purpose mentioned in the application.
34. Rule 8 of the Settlement Rules stipulates the disposal of applications seeking the lease of waste
land, which prescribes the preparation of a map, report, and investigation. However, it is silent
as regards the eligibility for settlement.
35. After perusal of Rules 5, 6 and 8 of the Settlement Rules, this Court is of the opinion that the
Rules are not clear as to the various parameters to be considered for the grant of a settlement.
However, the Government of Assam has been notifying various land policies over time, and the
most recent is the Land Policy, 2019. Such a policy addresses the eligibility and requirement for
settlements, based on which settlements are to be made.
36. Rule 12 of the Settlement Rules empowers the Government to make rules for the disposal of
government land and the ejectment therefrom of unauthorised occupiers, and Rule 13 empowers
the Government to make rules for the allotment of grazing grounds.
37. Rule 15 of the Settlement Rules is essential to the present lis, inasmuch as such Rules prescribe
Page No.# 28/33
that no person shall have any right to settlement merely because he is in occupation of land not
included in any lease granted by the State government, either to himself or to any other person.
38. Rule 18 deals with the ejectment of a person from land over which no person has acquired the
rights of proprietor or landholders, or settlement holders.
39. Rule 1(2)(b) of the Settlement Rules defines government land. The definition, read with Rule
18(2) of the Settlement Rules, makes it clear that no person would have a right to occupy lands
previously reserved for other public purposes. Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules further
clarifies that a person who enters into possession of land already excluded by general or special
orders will have no right to occupy the same. Further, such a person is liable for imprisonment
and a penalty.
40. From the Land Policy, 2019, it is clear that the Land Policy, 2019, is intended for the
regularisation of long occupation of government land with landless indigenous persons and for
the removal of illegal encroachment from different types of Government lands, VGRs, PGRs,
and other reserved lands, Satra lands etc.
41. Clauses 1, 1.4, of Land Policy, 2019 are pari materia with Rule 15 of the Settlement Rules. It
provides that mere possession by way of encroachment shall not be a criterion for entitlement to
get allotments/settlements of government land. Such a policy further stipulates that Touzi
Bahira Revenue would be collected only against allotted land, and that, for all other government
lands, the government would stop collecting the encroachment penalty (Bedokholi Jorimona).
42. Clause 2 of the Land Policy, 2019, stipulates the disposal of land acquired under the Assam
Fixation of Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1956 and under the Assam State Acquisition of Land
Belonging to Religious or Charitable Institutions of Public Nature Act, 1959.
43. Clause 2.4 may be relevant in the present case, which stipulates that the ceiling acquired land
which is not under tenancy and not yet allotted/settled, may be allotted expeditiously to
deserving indigenous landless persons, as per the provisions of the respective Acts and in
furtherance of the Government's Land Policy.
44. Clause 3 of the Land Policy, 2019, deals with the settlement of land for a homestead in rural
areas, and the condition is that the applicant is an indigenous family that does not have any
homestead land in the name of any family member anywhere in the entire State.
45. Clause 14 of the Land Policy, 2019, relates to settlement and reservation of land in towns. The
Page No.# 29/33
first eligibility is that the person must be an indigenous person not having any homestead land
in his name or in the name of his family in the State, however, subject to the condition that such
person is required to reside in the Urban area including the Guwahati City by virtue of nature of
occupation/service with a further condition that he has sufficient ground to justify that he has
not been able to purchase land in Guwahati City/other town.
46. Clause 14.3 of the Land Policy, 2019 clarifies that such a settlement cannot be granted merely
on the ground that the person concerned is in occupation of such land, irrespective of the period
of such occupation or encroachment, with a further provision that it would be the policy of the
State Government to consider settlement or to evict such persons as the case may be.
47. Protecting the bonafide claim of persons who are in continuous possession of land, since and
before 28th June, 2001, it is provided in the Land Policy that settlement of maximum 1 Katha 5
Lessa of land, in case of Guwahati and 1 Katha 10 Lessa's of land in case of other towns, as one
time measure for homestead purpose is to be followed considering the prescription of Land
Policy 1989.
48. In the case at hand, admittedly, the application made by the petitioner for settlement over the
land has already been rejected.
49. To summarise, the appellant's occupation is undisputedly over government land. The land is
reserved for a Hospital, an essential purpose. Therefore, by virtue of Rule 15 of the Settlement
Rules, which prohibits the settlement of land reserved for public purposes, such land cannot be
settled.
50. Now, coming to the procedure and need of issuance of Notices, a coordinate bench in Md.
Salak Uddin -Vs- State of Assam & Ors, laid down the proposition that under Rule 18(2) of
the Settlement Rules the Deputy Commissioner or such authority duly empowered under Rule 3
of the Settlement Rules has to arrive at a subjective satisfaction that there is no bona fide claim
of right and that Revenue authorities cannot be permitted to unilaterally decide as to whether an
occupier/ possessor has a bona fide claim of right involved inasmuch as it would require
adjudication of both law and facts, and without providing an opportunity to the
occupier/possessor, would be in violation of the principle of natural justice, which in turn would
violate Article 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
51. Under such circumstances, issuance of a notice shall be necessary to form a subjective
Page No.# 30/33
satisfaction, which is in consonance with the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the same
will facilitate a just, fair and transparent procedure, which are facets of Article 14, 19 and 21 of
the Constitution.
52. However, in the case in hand, notices were issued, and the appellants have raised their claims
to be bona fide; they were heard. Thus, the procedural fairness contemplated under Rule 18 (2)
was observed.
53. Above that, when the appellants, except for appellants in WA No. 311/2025, themselves have
admitted that the land they are occupying had already been reserved for TB
Hospital/construction of Pragjyotishpur Medical college, in our opinion, they cannot have any
bona fide right to claim for settlement over the land they are occupying and therefore, issuance
of notice under Section 18(2) cannot be said to be without jurisdiction.
54. Now coming to the arguments of Mr. N.N.B. Chouhdury, learned counsel for the appellant in
WA No. 311/2025, this Court is of the opinion that there are substances in his argument, so far
the same relates to non consideration of his claim. It is true that in the settlement order dated
03.01.2022, the District Commissioner had recorded that Dag No. 97 is outside the land
earmarked for the TB Hospital. Further from the minutes of the meeting dated 19.02.2022,
which was held for allotment of land to the Pragjyotishpur Medical College, the Dag No. 97 is
not incorporated. However, it is not clear, either from the record or affidavit in opposition filed
by the State respondents why such facts was recorded in order dated 03.01.2022 and Minutes of
the Meeting dated 19.02.2022. It is also not discernible from the record, when the land under
Dag No. 97 was earmarked/reserved for the Hospital. However, we cannot be unmindful of the
fact that there is no prescription under the Settlement Rules that when government land are
being possessed by persons, the same cannot be subsequently reserved for any public purposes.
55. Be that as it may, in our considered opinion while dealing with the bona fide claim of the
appellants in WA No. 311/2025, more particularly, in the backdrop of the litigational history as
recorded hereinabove, the respondent District Commissioner, ought to have dealt with the
contention raised in a better way that satisfies the mandates of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India
56. To summarise, the appellants have substantially confined their argument before this Court to
the entitlement of rehabilitation under Clauses 14.3 and 14.4 of the Assam Land Policy, 2019,
while accepting that once the land is already reserved for a public purpose, eviction is
Page No.# 31/33
inevitable. It is their further contention that, when eviction is imminent, in the given facts of the
present case, the State is also obliged to extend a human and welfare-oriented approach by
providing proper rehabilitation and/or resettlement before demolition of their dwelling houses.
On the other hand, the learned Advocate General contends that the petitioners do not satisfy the
eligibility criteria prescribed under law; some are not indigenous; some possess land in their
native places; and the policy does not contemplate the settlement of encroachers within urban
areas, particularly upon land earmarked for public infrastructure.
57. That being the position, in the considered opinion of this Court, the appellants cannot be settled
with land which they are occupying, either under Rule 16 of the Settlement Rules, or in terms of
Clause 14 of the Land Policy, 2019 and therefore, this court neither can term the speaking
orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M), nor the notices issued under Section
18(2) as illegal or without jurisdiction, however, the speaking orders passed by the deputy
commissioner, though procedurally valid, does not reflect a comprehensive enquiry and
determination of the requirements for the rehabilitation of the individual petitioners under
clauses 14.3 and 14.4, nor does it indicate individual factums regarding whether the appellants
are indeed landless, indigenous, and eligible for relocation benefits/settlement elsewhere.
58. In our opinion, it requires a balancing of two constitutional imperatives: on one hand, the
State's obligation to lawfully utilise its land for public purposes for larger societal benefit, and
on the other hand, the imperative to protect vulnerable citizens from arbitrary displacement as
elucidated by the Apex Court in Olga Tellis (supra) and by Delhi High Court in Sudama
(supra) recognizing the right to shelter as integral to the right to life under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, though right to shelter may not be relatable to a specific area/location
59. The welfare State, even when enforcing lawful eviction, must ensure that the actions are
informed by fairness, dignity and consideration for rehabilitation, consistent with the Directive
Principles of State Policy, particularly Articles 38 and 39 of the Constitution of India, which
mandate equitable distribution of resources and protection of weaker sections.
60. It is true that the Assam land policy, 2019, incorporates the aforesaid constitutional mandates
by expressly providing rehabilitation benefits to landless indigenous persons, subject to
verification of their socio-economic status and the absence of alternative land holdings.
61. While it is evident that appellant's possessions cannot be transformed into a legal right in the
teeth of lawful reservation for a medical college; a project routed in overwhelming public
Page No.# 32/33
interest, aligned with advancement of public health, which itself is a component of article 21 of
the Constitution of India, it is equally imperative that the State must adhere to welfare measures
embodied in its own polices.
62. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court therefore finds that while the eviction notices
and reservation of land for a medical college are legally sustainable, the question of
rehabilitation has not been duly and fully addressed.
63. The State, as a model welfare entity, cannot push citizens into homelessness without due
determination of their rights and eligibility for rehabilitation under applicable policies.
Application of such principles does not undermine public interest but strengthens social justice
in the course of development.
64. Consequently, while upholding the validity of the eviction, this Court directs the State
authorities, more particularly, Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue and
Disaster Management department and the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) to undertake a
fresh, individualised assessments of rehabilitation claim of each of the appellants strictly in
terms of the Assam Land Policy, 2019 and Settlement Rules framed under Regulations, 1886.
Such assessment shall involve proper verification of landlessness, indigenous status, socio-
economic vulnerability and absence of alternative accommodation. (Emphasis provided)
65. Therefore, in the fitness of thing, it will be appropriate to direct the respondent authorities more
particularly, the District Commissioner to consider this aspect of the matter while carrying out
the exercise directed hereinabove.
66. In addition, it is directed that while carrying out the exercise directed hereinabove, the claims
raised by the writ appellants in WA No. 311/2025 as regards status of dag No.97 shall also be
considered.
67. The exercise shall be completed within a period of 90 days from today.
68. Taking note of submissions of the learned Advocate General, Assam, that the construction of
the hospital is already completed, and land occupied by the appellants is required for future
expansion and for ancillary activities, in our considered opinion, ends of justice would be met,
if it is provided that till such determination is made, no coercive steps shall be taken to demolish
the existing dwelling houses of the appellants.
69. While parting with the record, we notice yet another aspect of the matter that the prescribed
Page No.# 33/33
format and the affidavit required to be filed when a citizen applies for settlement of government
land, do not incorporate all the information which requires consideration at the hand of the State
in terms of the Land Policy' 2019, absence of which may create disputes as has arisen in the
present case and therefore, in our view such affidavit/format of application requires substantive
improvement/alteration incorporating all the essential conditions for settlement of Govt. land,
envisaged in the land Policy' 2019 to arrive at just decision.
70. We order accordingly, to do the necessary improvement/alteration in the prescribed format and
affidavit required to be filed when a citizen applies for settlement of Govt. land, envisaged in
the land Policy, 2019.
71. With the aforesaid, reasons, observations, direction, the Writ Appeals stands disposed of.
Parties to bear their own cost.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
