Page No.# 1/16 vs The State Of Assam And 8 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 8946 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/16 vs The State Of Assam And 8 Ors on 27 November, 2025

                                                                  Page No.# 1/16

GAHC010233362022




                                                            2025:GAU-AS:16339

                       THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                        Case No. : WP(C)/7336/2022

         GAURI KANTA BASUMATARY AND 25 ORS
         S/O. LT. DURGA CHARAN BASUMATARY, VILL. SIALMARI, P.O. AND P.S.
         DUDHNOI, DIST. GOALPARA, ASSAM, PIN-783124.

         2: RAJIB RABHA
          S/O. LT. BANESWAR RABHA
         VILL. KANYAKUCHI PAHAR
          P.O. DARANGIRI
          P.S. RANGJULI
          DIST. GOALPARA
         ASSAM
          PIN-783130.

         3: PARESH RABHA
          S/O. LT. RAMSINGH RABHA
         VILL. KANYAKUCHI PAHAR
          P.O. DARANGIRI
          P.S. RANGJULI
          DIST. GOALPARA
         ASSAM
          PIN-783130.

         4: GOYARAM RABHA
          S/O. LT. JOGESWAR RABHA
         VILL. KANYAKUCHI PAHAR
          P.O. DARANGIRI
          P.S. RANGJULI
          DIST. GOALPARA
         ASSAM
          PIN-783130.

         5: BOBDEB RABHA
          S/O. NILURAM RABHA
         VILL. KANYAKUCHI PAHAR
                              Page No.# 2/16

P.O. DARANGIRI
P.S. RANGJULI
DIST. GOALPARA
ASSAM
PIN-783130.

6: PRABHAT RABHA
 S/O. KUMAR CHANDRA RABHA
VILL. KANYAKUCHI PAHAR
 P.O. DARANGIRI
 P.S. RANGJULI
 DIST. GOALPARA
ASSAM
 PIN-783130.

7: DIGEN RABHA
 S/O. AJIT KUMAR RABHA
VILL. KANYAKUCHI PAHAR
 P.O. DARANGIRI
 P.S. RANGJULI
 DIST. GOALPARA
ASSAM
 PIN-783134.

8: MONIRAM RABHA
 S/O. SOLURAM RABHA
VILL. KANYAKUCHI PAHAR
 P.O. DARANGIRI
 P.S. RANGJULI
 DIST. GOALPARA
ASSAM
 PIN-783134.

9: PURNIMA RABHA
 D/O. BHADI RAM RABHA
VILL. KANYAKUCHI PAHAR
 P.O. DARANGIRI
 P.S. RANGJULI
 DIST. GOALPARA
ASSAM
 PIN-783130.

10: THANESWAR RABHA
 S/O. NIDHAN CHANDRA RABHA
VILL. KANYAKUCHI PAHAR
 P.O. DARANGIRI
 P.S. RANGJULI
 DIST. GOALPARA
                                Page No.# 3/16

ASSAM
PIN-783134.

11: TANKESWAR RABHA
 S/O. NONTO RAM RABHA
 VILL. KANYAKUCHI PAHAR
 P.O. DARANGIRI
 P.S. RANGJULI
 DIST. GOALPARA
ASSAM
 PIN-783134.

12: NIREN RABHA
 S/O. LALTU RAM RABHA
VILL. KANYAKUCHI PAHAR
 P.O. DARANGIRI
 P.S. RANGJULI
 DIST. GOALPARA
ASSAM
 PIN-783134.

13: DULU DAS KHAKLARY
 S/O. PABITRA KUMAR KHAKLARY
VILL. BAGADOBA
 P.O. CHECHAPANI
 P.S. RANGJULI
 DIST. GOALPARA
ASSAM
 PIN-783134.

14: BRIJENDRA BASUMATARY
 S/O. MUDARAM BASUMATARY
VILL. RONGRONGPARA
 P.O. SECHAPANI
 P.S. RANGJULI
 DIST. GOALPARA
ASSAM
 PIN-783134.

15: SUMITRA RABHA
 D/O. SIYAM RAM RABHA
VILL. PRITHUPARA
 P.O. DARANGIRI
 P.S. RANGJULI
 DIST. GOALPARA
ASSAM
 PIN-783134.
                                                            Page No.# 4/16

16: JOYDEB KHAKLARY
 S/O. PURNO KHAKLARY
VILL. BOGADOBA
 P.O. SECHAPANI
 P.S. RANGJULI
 DIST. GOALPARA
ASSAM
 PIN-783134.

17: JUMILA MARAK
 D/O. SECTION MARAK
VILL. UDMARI GAROPARA
 P.O. DARANGIRI
 P.S. RANGJULI
 DIST. GOALPARA
ASSAM
 PIN-783134.

18: SABITRI SANGMA.
 DAUGHTER OF - KHOWARAMBE SANGMA.
 RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - UDMARI GAROPARA. P.O. DARANGIRI.
 P.S. RANGJULI. DISTRICT - GOALPARA (ASSAM) PIN -783134.

19: RANJITA MARAK.
 DAUGHTER OF - BISOTI MARAK.
 RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - UDMARI GAROPARA. P.O. DARANGIRI.
 P.S. RANGJULI. DISTRICT - GOALPARA (ASSAM) PIN -783134

20: NEEJONI SANGMA.
 DAUGHTER OF - KATI RAM MOMIN.
 RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - UDMARI GAROPARA. P.O. DARANGIRI.
 P.S. RANGJULI. DISTRICT - GOALPARA (ASSAM) PIN-783134

21: RAMJIT BASUMATARY
 SON OF - NARENDRA CHANDRA BASUMATARY.
 RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - BANGALPARA. P.O. DARANGIRI.
 P.S. RANGJULI. DISTRICT - GOALPARA (ASSAM) PIN - 783134

22: JOWARHAELAL BASUMATARY.
 SON OF - GOJENDRA KHERKOTARY.
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - BANGALPARA. P.O. DARANGIRI.
P.S. RANGJULI. DISTRICT - GOALPARA (ASSAM) PIN - 783134

23: GOPEN DAIMARY.
 SON OF - TIL KUMAR DAIMARY.
 RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - BANGALPARA. P.O. DARANGIRI.
 P.S. RANGJULI. DISTRICT - GOALPARA (ASSAM) PIN -783134
                                                           Page No.# 5/16

24: JITENDRA SWARGIARY.
 SON OF - TAMESWAR SWARGIARY.
 RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - BOGADOBA. P.O. DARANGIRI.
 P.S. RANGJULI. DISTRICT - GOALPARA (ASSAM) PIN -783134

25: ASHOK KHAKLARY.
 SON OF - BARENDRA KHAKLARY.
 RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - BOGADOBA. P.O. DARANGIRI.
 P.S. RANGJULI. DISTRICT - GOALPARA (ASSAM) PIN -783134

26: BASUDEB BASUMATARY.
 SON OF - DEBENDRA BASUMATARY.
 RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - BOGADOBA. P.O. DARANGIRI.
 P.S. RANGJULI. DISTRICT - GOALPARA (ASSAM) PIN -78313

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS
REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, FOREST
DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.

2:THE ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
 FOREST DEPTT.
 DISPUR
 GUWAHATI-06.

3:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND HEAD OF THE
FOREST FORCE

ASSAM
PANJABARI
GUWAHATI-27.

4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

GOALPARA
P.O. AND DIST. GOALPARA
ASSAM
PIN-783101.

5:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER

GOALPARA FOREST DIVISION
P.O. BALADMARI
P.S. AND DIST. GOALPARA
ASSAM
PIN-783121.
                                                       Page No.# 6/16


           6:THE RANGE OFFICER

           RONGJULI FOREST RANGE
           P.O. AND P.S. RANGJULI
           DIST. GOALPARA
           ASSAM
           PIN-783130.

           7:THE CIRCLE OFFICER

           RONGJULI REVENUE CIRCLE
           P.O. AND P.S. RONGJULI
           DIST. GOALPARA
           ASSAM
           PIN-783124.

           8:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
            DUDHNOI REVENUE CIRCLE
            P.O AND P.S- DUDHNOI
            DIST-GOALPARA (ASSAM)
            PIN-783124.

           9:REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT
            REP. BY COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
            DISPUR-6

                                    BEFORE
                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR


Advocate for the petitioner(s):     Mr S K Ghosh


Advocate for the respondent(s) : Mr D Gogoi

                                  Ms N Bordoloi
Date on which judgment was reserved : NA

Date of pronouncement of judgment     : 27.11.2025


Whether the pronouncement is of the : NA
operative part of the judgment?
                                                                        Page No.# 7/16

Whether the full judgment has been     : Yes
pronounced?

                         JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

(Rajesh Mazumdar, J.)

Heard Mr. S.K. Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Gogoi, learned standing counsel for the respondents in the Forest Department and Ms. N. Bordoloi, learned standing counsel for the respondent in the Revenue Department.

2. This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred by 26 (twenty six) writ petitioners, raising a grievance that the respondents in the State Government have sought to initiate an eviction process against the petitioners by issuing a general notice of eviction on 01.10.2022.

3. The petitioners claim to be indigenous people having their residential houses over patta land situated in the Goalpara district adjacent to reserved forest areas. The petitioners' grievance is that the respondents, without conducting any survey and without serving notice being served upon the petitioner as required in law, had entered into the patta land of the petitioners and destroyed the crops and houses thereon, which has led to reasonable apprehension that the respondents would evict the petitioners without following the due process of law.

4. Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have physical possession over the land which are identified as patta land and this fact would be reflected in different copies of the chitha of surveyed Page No.# 8/16

villages for the relevant revenue circles within the Goalpara district, which have been annexed to the writ petition and which are not disputed by the respondents. Mr. Ghosh has submitted that even as the petitioners were enjoying peaceful and uninterrupted possession and usage of

the land in issue, the respondent No. 5, i.e., the Divisional Forest Officer, Goalpara Forest Division had issued a general notice on 01.10.2020, calling upon public at large and requiring those who were encroaching forest land to vacate from such forest at the earliest. Mr. Ghosh has submitted that pursuant to the said notice, the officials of the respondent authorities had entered into the land under the possession of the petitioners and tried to evict the petitioners by destroying the crops and other standing structures.

4.1. Mr. Ghosh has further submitted that in view of the settled position of law, the respondents have acted illegally on the basis of a general notice, without any identification of the land which the respondents would refer to have been encroached and therefore, the impugned action of the respondents deserves interference of this Court.

5. The respondent Nos. 4 and 7 have filed their affidavit-in-opposition. By referring to the aforesaid affidavits, Mr N Das and Mr. I Borthakur, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 and respondent no 7 have submitted that a meeting was held in the conference hall of the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara along with officers of the Forest Department and all Circle Officers of the district, and it was resolved that the District Forest Officer (T), Goalpara would identify the areas falling under the reserved forest, that a joint verification would be conducted by concerned Circle Officer and officials of Page No.# 9/16

the Forest Department to look into if there were any encroachments, and further, after identification of the encroached area, the District Forest Officer will take necessary steps for wide publicity among encroachers to move away from the reserved forest area for effective conservation of wild elephants and to avoid further man-elephant conflict. A resolution was also taken to carry out the eviction drive within the reserved forest area with strict observance of due process of law. By referring to the said affidavit, it has been submitted that although a joint survey was carried out, the exact boundary of the reserved forest could not be ascertained during the survey by the Forest Department.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that it is not a fact that eviction drives had been resorted to on the land possessed by the petitioners without giving them due notice. The learned counsel for the respondents have also submitted that it is upon the petitioners to prove that they are not in occupation of land within the declared reserved forest. They have also submitted that the eviction process, if any, would be carried out only after following the due process of law, which would include service of notice of such intent. They have further submitted that this writ petition is premature and does not require adjudication in its present form.

7. The materials available on record have been perused and the submissions made by learned counsel for the contesting parties have received due consideration.

8. The notice dated 01.10.2022, does not appear to this Court to be a notice which fulfills the requirement of law. The notice apparently is not addressed to any particular person or directed towards any particular plot of land, but is a Page No.# 10/16

general notice which refers to common people, who are alleged to be encroaching forest land to vacate at the earliest. Viewed in that manner, the apprehension of the petitioners at the first glance appears to be premature. Their contention is that they are in possession of patta land, which is not encroaching reserved forest land. However, if the subsequent events asserted by the petitioners that the State authorities had entered into the land owned and possessed by the petitioners, damaged the crops etc. are taken at face value, there would appear a reasonable apprehension that the State authorities intend to evict the petitioners from their land. This is not to say that in the absence of any reliable evidence, this Court has assumed that the respondents have attempted to evict the petitioners at any point of time. The reference is made only to evaluate whether the petitioners have made out a case of reasonable apprehension for praying before this Court to issue directions to the respondents in accordance with the prayers made in the writ petition.

9. 9. The law regarding the eviction of encroachers upon forest land/land reserved for forest/reserved forest has been considered by this Court and also by the Hon'ble Apex Court on several occasions. In PIL (Suo Moto) No. 1/2022, this Court has given the following directions to the State authorities in a case where contesting claims of the State Government, who wanted to take steps to reduce man-elephant conflicts on the one hand and the claims of the persons who apprehended action at the hand of the State Government although they claimed to be not occupying forest land on the other hand, had to be resolved. The directions issued at paragraph No. 6 of the judgment and order dated 05.09.2022, in PIL (Suo Moto) No. 1/2022, are reproduced herein below:

"6. Considering both the affidavits-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3, Page No.# 11/16

respectively, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent State authorities are taking some steps, however, in order to see that the human-elephant conflict is minimised and the forest area is maintained and the encroachment is removed, following directions deserves to be given;

i) The State Government in the Environment & Forest Department shall adhere to the steps already initiated by it and shall continue the same in order to curb any mischief or loss of life of both wild elephants and human beings.

ii) The State Government is further directed to constitute special task force to be headed by Principal Chief Conservator of Forest which would include the Divisional Forest Officer as well as the Superintendent of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Goalpara district as member of such task force which shall monitor the steps more particularly enumerated in paragraph 5 of the affidavit-in opposition as observed hereinabove, permanently.

iii) The Development Commissioner of Goalpara district and Divisional Forest Officer, Goalpara shall conduct survey of encroachment made in the forest area within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and shall immediately initiate steps for eviction of such illegal encroachment in accordance with law. However, it is clarified that while conducting eviction drive, the authorities shall follow the due process of law.

iv) The respondent authorities shall create facilities of veterinary treatment for injured elephants at the Headquarter of district Goalpara,

v) It would be the responsibilities of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Head of Forests Force, Assam, respondent No.2 to carry out the aforesaid directions."

10. Further, this Court in WP(C) No. 6256/2024(disposed of on 24.10.2025) had dealt with a similar notice, which related to a different revenue circle in the Page No.# 12/16

same district of Goalpara. The land in issue in that case was described as Government khas land. Paragraph 12 of the said order is reproduced herein below:

"12. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the respondents that the notice dated 13.11.2024, would indeed require a revisit by the authorities to comply with the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgments, this Court interferes with the notice dated 13.11.2024, thereby setting aside and quashing the same, however, with the liberty to the state respondents to issue proper and lawful notices, if so required to the occupants of the land in issue. It is also provided that in case such notices are received by the petitioners herein, they would be entitled to file their reply to such notices and the respondent authorities would be liable to consider all the grounds taken up in such notices/representations before coming to a final conclusion on the issue."

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the matters relating to Forest reserve land, in Nature Lovers Movement -Versus- State of Kerala & Others, reported in (2009) 5 SCC 373, has declared that no activity in a declared forest land can be done, without the prior approval of the Central Government. In fact, even regularizing of use of any forest land for any non- forest purposes or for issuance of patta or for grant of lease to any occupants or encroachers on forest land cannot be done without the prior approval of the Central Government.

12. In T. N. Godavaram -Vs- Union of India , reported in (1997) 2 SCC 267, the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that the term "forest", according to Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act will not only include "forest" as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership.

Page No.# 13/16

13. A Division Bench of this Court in Abdul Khalek & 58 Others -Versus- The State of Assam & Others, passed in WA/251/2025 (disposed of on 18.08.2025) has held that if any drive is undertaken for clearing the reserved forest area of all encroachments and if it is found that there are some settlers, even though unauthorized, they ought to be given a reasonable time period of 15 days, to explain under what circumstances they had set up their residence inside the reserved forest area, where any non-forest activity or their presence attracts penal offence, and a further period of 15 days for exiting the place on being asked to do so. It has also been observed that the directions issued in the case would not protect encroachers from being prosecuted for the penal offence committed by them in carrying out non-forest activity in the reserved forest area under Regulation 24 and 25 of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891.

14. In the case of All Asom Goriya Yuva Chatra Parisad -Vs The State of Assam and 11 Ors, in PIL/39/2025, disposed of on 10.09.2025, the Division Bench of this Court has held that the directions issued in WA No. 251/2025 are required to be applied to unauthorized settlers/encroachers, who are to be driven out from reserved forest areas, after they are given a show- cause notice of 15 days, to enable them to explain the circumstances under which they have set up their residences inside the reserved forest area and whether any non-forest activities or their presence attracts penal offences under the applicable laws. It is only, thereafter, that the State respondents would be justified in taking steps for evicting the encroachers.

15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures, reported in (2025) 5 SCC 1, had held that no demolition should be carried out without a proper show-cause notice, returnable Page No.# 14/16

at least within 15 days from the date of service of such notice, and the time of 15 days shall start from the date of receipt of such notice. The notices shall contain the details regarding the nature of the unauthorized construction, the details of the specific violation and the ground of demolition, a list of documents that the receiver of the notice is required to furnish along with his reply and a specific date on which the personal hearing is fixed and the designated authority beforewhom the hearing will take place. It has been further provided that an opportunity of personal hearing should be granted and the minutes of such a hearing shall also be recorded and a final order regarding contentions of the noticee and the reasons to justify, if the designated authority disagrees with the evidences, whether the extreme steps of demolition is the only option available and options like compounding and demolishing only part of the property are not available, is required to be passed by the competent authority.

16. In the present case, notices issued by the Forest Department did not contain the details of the land allegedly encroached by the petitioners, due to which it would not be possible for the petitioners to identify the plot of land and/or to file an effective reply to the notice. The petitioners have asserted that they are in occupation of patta land. It is an admitted case of the respondent State that the land under the Reserved Forest has not yet been identified/demarcated, and therefore, the petitioners have been able to prima facie establish that the land over which the petitioners acquired possession, to the best of the knowledge of the petitioners, which is based on records maintained by the Revenue Department, is patta land and do not fall within the declared reserve forest. This Court, however, is not adjudicating on the nature of the land in possession of the petitioner and is proceeding only on a prima facie satisfaction that the petitioners deserve proper notice and adequate Page No.# 15/16

opportunity of hearing before a conclusion is arrived at as to whether the petitioners are encroachers on forest land and/or they are liable to face eviction proceedings.

17. This Court, in view of the above narration, finds itself in agreement with the contention of petitioners to the extent that the notices issued to the petitioners were devoid of sufficient details to enable the petitioners to formulate effective replies and that such a generalized notice cannot be relied upon by the respondent state to take measures to evict the petitioner from the land in their possession which is described in the writ petition. It remains a fact that the forest land was not identified, at least not till the time the affidavits were filed by the respondents. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the Forest Reserved land is initially required to be identified and thereafter, in the event the land of the petitioners are found to be included in such identified/demarcated land, the respondents would be required to take up such process as is permissible in law to protect Reserved Forest land.

18. This Court has come to a finding that the notice dated 01.10.2022 assailed in this writ petition does not satisfy the requirements of law and the natural corollary is that such notices would deprive the petitioners of an effective opportunity to reply, violating the principles of natural justice.

19. The notices impugned in the writ petitions are hereby interfered with. Such interference would however, neither restrain the State authorities to issue proper and lawful notices to occupants of portions of land which, according to the State fall under the declared reserve forest area, nor restrain the State authorities from taking up such lawful measures as to reclaim the land declared Page No.# 16/16

asreserved forest land. The occupants who receive such notices would be entitled to reply to such notices along with all documentary evidence in support of their reply. It is only thereafter that the respondents would come to a final decision, which shall be made known to the occupants before they are required to vacate the land in the event where the decision of the authorities goes against the petitioners.

20. It is also provided that in case the State proposes to resort to eviction of encroachers and unauthorized occupants from the Reserved Forest land, the process laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court regarding eviction, shall be strictly followed by the State authorities.

21. It goes without saying that till such time that the occupants of the land in issue are given due notice along with an opportunity of effective hearing and a final decision is taken by the State authorities, there would be no process initiated by the respondent authorities to evict the petitioners.

22. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant