Page No.# 1/7 vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 7331 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/7 vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 16 September, 2025

                                                             Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010051372025




                                                       2025:GAU-AS:12711

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

                          Case No. : WP(C)/2147/2025


         BHANU DAS
         S/O- HIRALAL DAS
         R/O- R K MISSION ROAD
         BIRUBARI
         UDAYPUR
         P.S. PALTAN BAZAR
         DIST- KAMRUP METRO
         ASSAM
         PIN- 781008.


          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 METRO
          HENGRABARI
          GUWAHATI-781036
         ASSAM

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

          4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
                                                                         Page No.# 2/7

             GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE
             GUWAHATI-781001.
             ------------
             Advocate for : MR. T DEURI
             Advocate for : GA
             ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS



                                  :::BEFORE:::
                   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE

                                 JUDGMENT (ORAL)

16.09.2025

Heard Mr. T. Deuri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department and Mr. S. R. Baruah, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

2. Aggrieved by the eviction process, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a direction to stop the eviction process against the petitioner from a land measuring 15 Lechas covered by Dag No. 97(N)/12(O) situated at Village Birubari, Mouza- Ulubari in the District of Kamrup(M), Guwahati pursuant to the Notice dated 05.03.2025, issued by the Circle Officer, Guwahati Revenue Circle granting grace period on the basis of the earlier orders issued based on the direction of this Court dated 07.11.2024, passed in WP(C) No. 3715/2020 and other batch of writ petitions.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is a permanent resident of R. K. Mission Road, Birubari, Udaypur, District Kamrup(M), Assam and claims that he is in occupation and possession of Government land at Dag No.12 (Old)/97(New) and has been residing there by constructing dwelling house thereon since last 30 years.

Page No.# 3/7

4. The petitioner submitted application before the respondent authorities, particularly Deputy Commissioner Kamrup (M), for settlement of the land in question in his favour. However, instead of considering the case of the petitioner, the impugned notice dated 05.03.2025 have been issued directing the petitioner to vacate the land pursuant to the order dated 07.11.2024, passed in WP(C)/3715/2020 and other connected writ petitions, where the petitioner was notified to vacate the land.

5. Mr. T. Deuri, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that as per the Assam Land Revenue Regulations, the petitioner, having been in possession and occupation of the land in question, is entitled to be considered for settlement. The learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner having accrued right for settlement over the land in question which is under the occupation not only as per the Land Settlement Rules, but also the Land Policy of 2019, the respondent authorities may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner.

6. Mr. Deuri, 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 Page No.# 4/7

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

7. Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department and Mr. S. R. Baruah, learned State Counsel, have fairly submitted 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 petitioner herein is claimed to be under Dag No.97, similar order and direction may be passed as passed in the above batch of writ petitions.

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

9. The petitioner claims to be in occupation of a plot of land at Dag No.12 (Old) or 97 (New) since 30 years. He has claimed to have filed application for settlement of the land in his 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 Page No.# 5/7

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 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 Page No.# 6/7

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 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."

10. 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 petitioner appears to be in similar circumstanced, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to get similar relief as the impugned action of the respondent authority for eviction of the petitioner pursuant to the Notice dated 05.03.2025, issued by the Circle Officer, Guwahati Revenue Circle, appears to be without providing any opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, a similar relief is provided to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

(i) The petitioner is directed to submit representation with documents/evidences in support of his claim that he has the bona fide claim of right over the land under his 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 Page No.# 7/7

from today.

(ii) The Deputy Commissioner on receipt of the application shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner either personally or through his authorized representatives. The Deputy Commissioner 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 petitioner shall be communicated with the speaking orders within a further period of 30(thirty) days from the date of receipt of the application.

11. Till the speaking order is passed, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner, if he has 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.

12. Writ petition is disposed of in terms above.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant