Page No.# 1/ vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 7174 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/ vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 10 September, 2025

                                                            Page No.# 1/10

GAHC010051372025




                                                      undefined

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

                         Case No. : WP(C)/1376/2025



         SMTI PHULMANI TALUKDAR AND 4 ORS.
         W/O LATE JATIN TALUKDAR
         R/O-VILLAGE- ULUBARI (BIRUBARI)
         DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR NAGAR
         MOUZA- ULUBARI
         P.S. PALTAN BAZAR
         DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M)
         ASSAM.

         2: SMTI SUNITA SARMA
         W/O ARUN SARMA
         R/O-VILLAGE- ULUBARI (BIRUBARI)
          DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR NAGAR
          MOUZA- ULUBARI
          P.S. PALTAN BAZAR
          DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M)
         ASSAM.

         3: JAYLAL PANDIT
         S/O. BHATKARI PANDIT
         R/O-VILLAGE- ULUBARI (BIRUBARI)
         DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR NAGAR
         MOUZA- ULUBARI
         P.S. PALTAN BAZAR
         DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M)
         ASSAM.

         4: MANTURAM BORA
         S/O.-SUKLESWAR BORA
         R/O-VILLAGE- ULUBARI (BIRUBARI)
         DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR NAGAR
         MOUZA- ULUBARI
         P.S. PALTAN BAZAR
                                                       Page No.# 2/10

DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM.

5: PRADIP SHAH
R/O-VILLAGE- ULUBARI (BIRUBARI)
DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR NAGAR
MOUZA- ULUBARI
P.S. 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 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP (M)
(LAND SETTLEMENT BRANCH)
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI - 781036

4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI - 781007
------------
Advocate for : MR R DHAR
Advocate for : SC
REVENUE appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.



Linked Case : WP(C)/1459/2025

SMTI BINOTA ROY
W/O- LATE NIRMALENDU ROY
R/O- VILL.- ULUBARI (BIRUBARI)
DR. B.R. AMEDKAR NAGAR
                                                    Page No.# 3/10

MOUZA- ULUBARI
P.S. PALTANBAZAR
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
GUWAHATI-781006
ASSAM

2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP METRO
 HENGRABARI
 GUWAHATI-781036
ASSAM

3:THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP METRO (LAND SETTLEMENT BRANCH)
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI-781036.

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 : WP(C)/1462/2025

SMTI. BULU HALDAR
W/O- TAPAN HALDAR
R/O- VILL- ULUBARI (BIRUBARI)
DR. B.R. AMEDKAR NAGAR
MOUZA- ULUBARI
P.S. PALTANBAZAR
DIST. KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
                                                                 Page No.# 4/10


             VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
            REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
            OF ASSAM
            REVENUE DEPARTMENT
            DISPUR
            GUWAHATI-781006
            ASSAM

            2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
            KAMRUP METRO
             HENGRABARI
             GUWAHATI-781036
            ASSAM

            3:THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
            KAMRUP (METRO)
            (LAND SETTLEMENT BRANCH)
            HENGRABARI
            GUWAHATI-781036.

            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



                                  BEFORE
                      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE

                                JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Date : 10.09.2025

Heard Mr. N. N. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C)/1376/2025 and Mr. A. Matlib, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)/1459/2025 and in WP(C)/1462/2025. Also heard Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Page No.# 5/10

Standing Counsel, Revenue Department and Mr. S. R. Baruah, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioners, 7 (seven) in numbers, have challenged the Notice dated 05.03.2025, issued by the Circle Officer, Guwahati Revenue Circle, Guwahati, whereby, the petitioners have been directed to vacate the land or otherwise eviction drive shall be carried.

3. Having regard to the affinity and similitude of the factual background and the issue raised, these writ petitions are heard analogously and disposed of by this common order.

4. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioners are the residents of village Ulubari (Birubari), Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Nagar, Guwahati under Ulubari Mouza and were original inhabitants of different districts in Assam. Petitioners claim that they are in occupation and possession of Government land at Dag No.12 (Old)/97(new) and have been residing by constructing dwelling houses thereon since last 25-30 years.

5. The petitioners submitted application before the respondent authorities, particularly Deputy Commissioner Kamrup (M), for settlement of the land in question in favour of the petitioners. However, instead of considering the case of the petitioners, the impugned notice dated 05.03.2025 have been issued directing the petitioner to vacate the land pursuant to the order passed in WP(C)/3715/2020, where the petitioners were notified to vacate the land vide order dated 21.11.2024.

6. Mr. N. N. B. Choudhury and Mr. A. Matlib, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that as per the Assam Land Revenue Regulations, the petitioners having been in possession and occupation of the land in question are Page No.# 6/10

entitled to be considered for settlement. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although the impugned notice dated 05.03.2025 does not specifically indicates under which provisions of law the notice has been issued, however the considering Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules, it is the Deputy Commissioner who has the authority to eject the encroachers from the Government land. The petitioners having accrued right for settlement over the land in question which are under the occupation not only as per the Land Settlement Rules, but also the Land Policy of 2019, the case of the petitioners may be directed to consider.

7. Mr. N.N.B. Choudhury, learned counsel, while relying on the judgment and order of this Court dated 07.11.2024, passed in a batch of writ petitions and leading case being WP(C)/3715/2020 (Monmil Boro & 10 Ors. Vs. State of Assam & 2 Ors.), submits that this Court, in a similarly circumstanced matters, has held that the question as to whether the petitioners can be evicted by following the summary procedure as mandated under Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules is dependent upon the decision as to whether the petitioners have a bona fide claim of right invoked and also taking note of the Land Policy of 2019 which stipulates that an indigenous person having no land would be considered for grant of settlement subject to person showing that he or she fulfills the conditions as per Assam Land Policy, 2019. The persons cannot be evicted by recourse to the summary proceedings and without affording an opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, this Court directed the respondent authorities to allow the petitioners in those batch of writ petitions to submit individual replies treating the Rule 18 of Settlement Rules as Show Cause Notice with a further direction to the Deputy Commissioner Kamrup(M) to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner either personally or through their authorized representatives and Page No.# 7/10

to pass speaking orders. Therefore, he submits that the petitioners are also similarly situated persons as that of writ petitioners who have settled in Dag No.96 and the petitioners herein at Dag No.97.

8. Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department and Mr. S. R. Baruah, learned State Counsel, have fairly submited that in view of the order dated 07.11.2024 passed in WP(C)/3715/2020 and other batch of writ petitions which were pertains to the Dag No.96 and the petitioners herein are claims to be under Dag No.97, similar order and direction may be passed as in the above batch of writ petitions.

9. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

10. The petitioners claim to be in occupation of a plot of land at Dag No.12 (Old) or 97 (New) since 25 to 30 years. Further, they have claimed to have filed application for settlement of the land in their favour as per the Land Policy, 2019 as well as the Land Settlement Rules. This Court, in a similar matter pertaining to Dag No. 96, has disposed of the batch of writ petitions vide order dated 07.11.2024, the leading case being WP(C)/3715/2020 Monmil Boro (Supra). The relevant paragraphs are quoted hereinbelow:

"48. It transpires from the records that there is no denial to the facts that the petitioners herein are in occupation of Government lands. The question as to whether the petitioners can be evicted by following the summary procedure as mandated under Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules is dependant upon the decision as to whether, the petitioners have a bona fide claim of right involved. This Court has also taken note of the Land Policy of 2019, which stipulates that an indigenous person having no land would be considered for grant of settlement, subject to the person showing that he/she fulfills the conditions as per the Assam Land Policy of 2019. However, in order to show that the person concerned cannot be evicted by recourse to the summary proceedings, the person concerned upon being afforded an opportunity is able to show before the authorities that he/she/they have bona fide claim of right involved in Page No.# 8/10

respect to the land. It is also imperative to bear in mind that a person cannot claim rights to settlement over government merely because he/she is in occupation of the land by constructing houses. Rule 15 of the Settlement Rules as well as Clause 14.3 of the Assam Land Policy, 2019 are clear injunctions to such claim of rights. The question whether a person would be entitled to settlement would depend upon varied factors viz. the eligibility of such persons as mandated under law, the resources available to the State as well as the availability of lands under the disposal of the State. The Assam Land Policy, 2019, categorically mentions that the State Government shall have a discretion in such circumstances. Apart from that it also mandates that merely because a person is in occupation of a land, the person cannot claim as a matter of right to seek settlement over the land under occupation.

49. This Court had also taken note of that the petitioners herein were issued notice to vacate without affording any opportunity to show that the recourse to summary procedure mandated in Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules could not have been resorted to. In other words, the petitioners herein have not been afforded the opportunity to explain as to whether they have a bona fide claim of right involved for which the recourse to Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules are not permissible. The said actions on the part of the Respondent Authorities in directing the petitioners to vacate without affording any opportunity amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice as well as the settled principles of law in Md. Salak Uddin (supra).Taking into account the fact that the petitioners herein have been issued notices, the said notices shall be construed to be notices asking the petitioners to show cause as why the petitioners should not be evicted by taking recourse to Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules.

50. Accordingly, this Court therefore, disposes of the instant batch of these writ petitions with the following observations and directions:

(i) The impugned notices under Rule 18 so issued to the petitioners to vacate shall be construed as notices issued by the Circle Officer, Guwahati Revenue Circle, to show cause why the petitioners should not be evicted by taking recourse to Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules.

(ii) The petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions are given the liberty to submit individual replies and substantiating the same with documents and such evidence as deemed proper thereby showing cause that the petitioners have a bona fide claim of right involved in respect to the land under their occupation and as such the recourse to Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules is not permissible.

(iii) The liberty given above is to be exercised within 30 (thirty) days, from the date of the instant order. In the said replies, the petitioners herein shall indicate in which writ petition, the petitioner(s) were parties.

(iv) The Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) is directed to give an opportunity of Page No.# 9/10

hearing to the petitioners either personally or through their authorized representative(s). The Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) shall thereupon pass appropriate speaking orders. The Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) is further directed to allot a particular area in his office wherein, such replies could be submitted. A notice be hanged in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) indicating the area.

(v) This Court further directs that upon the speaking orders being passed, the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro) shall notify in its notice board about the fact that the speaking order had been passed. For a period of 30 (thirty) days from such notification, no coercive measures be taken so that if the petitioners are aggrieved, they may avail remedies as permissible under law."

11. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and considering that this Court had disposed of the matters of similar nature, the leading case being WP(C)/3715/2020 Monmil Boro (Supra) and considering that the present petitioners are appears to be in similar circumstanced, I am of the considered view that the petitioners are entitled to get similar relief as the impugned eviction notice directing the petitioners to vacate appears to be without providing any opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, a similar relief is provided to the petitioners. The writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:

(i) The petitioners are directed to submits individual representation with documents/evidences in support of their claim that they have the bona fide claim of right over the land under their occupation for settlement as per the Land Policy and Land Settlement Rules before the Deputy Commissioner Kamrup (M), Assam within a period of 30(thirty) days from today.

(ii) The Deputy Commissioner on receipt of the application shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners either personally or through their authorized representatives. The Deputy Commissioner Page No.# 10/10

after providing an opportunity of hearing shall pass appropriate speaking orders within period of 30(thirty) days from the date of receipt of the representation. Thereafter the petitioners shall be communicated with the speaking orders within a further period of 30(thirty) days from the date of receipt of the application.

12. Till the speaking order is passed, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners, if they have not already been evicted. It is also provided that no hindrance shall be caused, if any construction of hospital or other infrastructure is in progress.

13. Writ petitions are disposed of in terms above.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant