Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/32 vs The State Of Assam And Ors on 18 September, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Page No.# 1/32
GAHC010084322025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2128/2025
SRI MONMIL BORO AND ORS
SON OF LATE RAMCHARAN BORO R/O VIL ULUBARI BIRUBARAI DR B R
AMEDKAR NAGARA MOUZA ULUBARI PS PALTAN BAZAR DIST KAMRUP
METRO ASSAM
2: SMTI SHANTI DEVI
WIFE OF HARINDER RAY R/O VIL ULUBARI BIRUBARAI DR B R
AMEDKAR NAGARA MOUZA ULUBARI PS PALTAN BAZAR DIST KAMRUP
METRO ASSAM
3: SRI SOVIT PURBEY
SON OF LATE RAMBILASH PURBEY. R/O VIL ULUBARI BIRUBARAI DR B
R AMEDKAR NAGARA MOUZA ULUBARI PS PALTAN BAZAR DIST
KAMRUP METRO ASSAM
4: SMTI SUMAN DEVI
WIFE OF AKALU GUPTA R/O VIL ULUBARI BIRUBARAI DR B R AMEDKAR
NAGARA MOUZA ULUBARI PS PALTAN BAZAR DIST KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM
5: SRI LALIT KAMAT
SON OF KAPLESWAR KAMAT.R/O VIL ULUBARI BIRUBARAI DR B R
AMEDKAR NAGARA MOUZA ULUBARI PS PALTAN BAZAR DIST KAMRUP
METRO ASSAM
6: SRI HARI PRASAD
ABDURKADDUS NALBARI AND GUWAHAT REGN. NO. 37610 OVT ND 6
SON OF RAMDAS PRASAD. R/O VIL ULUBARI BIRUBARAI DR B R
AMEDKAR NAGARA MOUZA ULUBARI PS PALTAN BAZAR DIST KAMRUP
METRO ASSAM
7: SRI DINESH KAMAT
SON OF KAPLESWAR KAMAT. R/O VIL ULUBARI BIRUBARAI DR B R
AMEDKAR NAGARA MOUZA ULUBARI PS PALTAN BAZAR DIST KAMRUP
Page No.# 2/32
METRO ASSAM
8: SMTI NEERA GUPTA
WIFE OF SRI BINOD KUMAR GUPTA. RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- ULUBARI
(BIRUBARI)
DR. B. R. AMEDKAR NAGAR
MOUZA- ULUBARI
P.S. PALTAN BAZAR
DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M)
ASSA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT
OF ASSAM, REVENUE DEPARTMENT , DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP METRO
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
3:THE CO DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
NEW GUWAHATI CO DISTRICT
KAMRUP METRO HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI 36 ASSAM
4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR R DHAR, MR. K KASHYAP (P-1,2,3,4,56,7,8),MR. N N B
CHOUDHURY(P-1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8),MD. A MATLIB
Advocate for the Respondent : SC. REVENUE, GA, ASSAM
Linked Case : WP(C)/2191/2025
KAILASH MAHASETH
S/O- LATE AWADH MAHASETH
R/O- ULUBARI (BIRUBARI)
Page No.# 3/32
MOUZA- BIRUBARI
P.S. PALTANBAZAR
DIST. KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM
PIN- 781007.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI
DIST. KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM
PIN- 781006.
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP METRO DISTRICT
HENGRABARI ROAD
LICHUBAGAN
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI
DIST. KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
PIN- 781036.
3:THE CO-DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
NEW GUWAHATI CO-DISTRICT
HENGRABARI ROAD
LICHUBAGAN
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI
DIST- KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM
PIN- 781036.
4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI
DIST. KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM
PIN- 781007.
------------
Advocate for : MR. T DEURI
Page No.# 4/32
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
Linked Case : WP(C)/2188/2025
SANJAY KUMAR BHURA
S/O- LATE SHANTILAL BHURA
R/O- ULUBARI (BIRUBARI)
MOUZA- ULUBARI
PS- PALTAN BAZAR
DIST- KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM
PIN- 781007
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI
DIST. KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM
PIN- 781006.
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP METRO DISTRICT
HENGRABARI ROAD
LICHUBAGAN
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI
DIST. KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
PIN- 781036.
3:THE CO-DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
NEW GUWAHATI CO-DISTRICT
HENGRABARI ROAD
LICHUBAGAN
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI
DIST- KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM
PIN- 781036.
Page No.# 5/32
4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI
DIST. KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM
PIN- 781007.
------------
Advocate for : MR. T DEURI
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
Linked Case : WP(C)/2198/2025
RINKU DAS
S/O- LATE RANABIR DAS
R/O- ULUBARI (BIRUBARI)
MOUZA- ULUBARI
PS- PALTAN BAZAR
DIST- KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM
PIN- 781007
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPT.
DISPUR
GHY
DIST.- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
PIN- 781006
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP METRO
HENGRABARI ROAD
LICHUBAGAN
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI
Page No.# 6/32
DIST.- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
PIN- 781036
3:THE CO-DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
NEW GUWAHATI CO-DISTRICT
HENGRABARI ROAD
LICHUBAGAN
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI
DIST.- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
PIN- 781036
4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI
DIST.- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
PIN- 781007
------------
Advocate for : MR. M J BHATTACHARYYA
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
Linked Case : WP(C)/2228/2025
SMTI SAROJ DEVI
W/O MITHILESH SINGH R/O- VILL-ULUBARI (BIRUBARI)
DR. B.R.AMEDKAR NAGAR
MOUZA-ULUBARI
P.S- PALTAN BAZAR
DIST-KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781036
Page No.# 7/32
ASSAM
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP (M)
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI-781036
ASSAM
3:THE CO DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
NEW GUWAHATI CO- DISTRICT
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI-781036
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 ORS
Linked Case : WP(C)/2195/2025
BHUMIKA PATHAK MEDHI
W/O- LATE PARAMANANDA MEDHI
R/O- ULUBARI (BIRUBARI)
MOUZA- ULUBARI
PS- PALTAN BAZAR
DIST- KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM
PIN- 781007
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPT.
DISPUR
GHY
DIST.- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
Page No.# 8/32
PIN- 781006
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP METRO
HENGRABARI ROAD
LICHUBAGAN
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI
DIST.- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
PIN- 781036
3:THE CO-DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
NEW GUWAHATI CO-DISTRICT
HENGRABARI ROAD
LICHUBAGAN
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI
DIST.- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
PIN- 781036
4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI
DIST.- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
PIN- 781007
------------
Advocate for : MR. M J BHATTACHARYYA
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
Linked Case : WP(C)/2194/2025
POTSHANGBAM KHONI CHAOBA MEETEI
S/O- P. PISHAK MEETEI
R/O- ULUBARI (BIRUBARI)
MOUZA- ULUBARI
PS- PALTAN BAZAR
DIST- KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM
PIN- 781007.
Page No.# 9/32
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI
DIST. KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM
PIN- 781006.
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP METRO DISTRICT
HENGRABARI ROAD
LICHUBAGAN
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI
DIST. KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
PIN- 781036.
3:THE CO-DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
NEW GUWAHATI CO-DISTRICT
HENGRABARI ROAD
LICHUBAGAN
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI
DIST- KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM
PIN- 781036.
4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI
DIST. KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM
PIN- 781007.
------------
Advocate for : MR. T DEURI
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
Page No.# 10/32
Linked Case : WP(C)/2201/2025
PANCHAM ROY
S/O- LATE BALDEV ROY
R/O- ULUBARI (BIRUBARI)
MOUZA- ULUBARI
PS- PALTAN BAZAR
DIST- KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM
PIN- 781007.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI
DIST. KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM
PIN- 781006.
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP METRO DISTRICT
HENGRABARI ROAD
LICHUBAGAN
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI
DIST. KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
PIN- 781036.
3:THE CO-DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
NEW GUWAHATI CO-DISTRICT
HENGRABARI ROAD
LICHUBAGAN
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI
DIST- KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM
PIN- 781036.
4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI
Page No.# 11/32
DIST. KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM
PIN- 781007.
------------
Advocate for : MR. T DEURI
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
Linked Case : WP(C)/2197/2025
KONJENBAM ANJALI DEVI
D/O- LATE K HEMANTA SINGH
R/O- ULUBARI (BIRUBARI)
MOUZA- ULUBARI
PS- PALTAN BAZAR
DIST- KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM
PIN- 781007
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI
DIST. KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM
PIN- 781006.
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP METRO DISTRICT
HENGRABARI ROAD
LICHUBAGAN
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI
DIST. KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
PIN- 781036.
3:THE CO-DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
NEW GUWAHATI CO-DISTRICT
HENGRABARI ROAD
LICHUBAGAN
Page No.# 12/32
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI
DIST- KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM
PIN- 781036.
4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI
DIST. KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM
PIN- 781007.
------------
Advocate for : MR. T DEURI
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
Linked Case : WP(C)/2133/2025
ARUN MONDAL
SON OF LATE HARADHAN MONDAL
VILLAGE- ULUBARI (BIRUBARI)
DR. B. R. AMEDKAR NAGAR
ULUBARI
PALTAN BAZAR
KAMRUP METRO
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 METRO
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI-781036
ASSAM
3:THE CO-DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
Page No.# 13/32
NEW GUWAHATI CO-DISTRICT
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)/2231/2025
INDRA BISWAS
S/O- LATE UPEN CHANDRA BISWAS
R/O- VILL- ULUBARI (BIRUBARI)
DR. B. R. AMEDKAR 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
ASSAM
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP (M)
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI-781036
ASSAM
3:THE CO-DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
NEW GUWAHATI CO- DISTRICT
HENGRABARI
Page No.# 14/32
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)/2223/2025
JAY PRAKASH PRASAD
S/O. LATE BISWANATH RAM
R/O.- VILL ULUBARI (BIRUBARI)
DR. B.R.AMEDKAR NAGAR
MOUZA- ULUBARI
P.S- PALTAN BAZAR
DIST-KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
REVENUE DEPT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006
ASSAM.
3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP (M)
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI- 781036
ASSAM.
4:THE CO-DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
NEW GUWAHATI CO- DISTRICT
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI- 781036.
5:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
Page No.# 15/32
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 : WP(C)/2189/2025
DUKHAHARAN RAUT
S/O LT JIBACHH RAUT R/O- ULUBARI BIRUBARI
MOUZA ULUBARI
PS- PALTAN BAZAR
DIST- KAMRUPMETRO
ASSAM
PIN- 781007
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
REP BY THE COMM AND SECY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM
REVENUE AND DISESTER MANAGEMENT DEPTT DISPUR
GHY 781006
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP METRO
HEGRABARI ROAD LICHUBAGAN GUWAHATI DIST KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM PIN 781036
3:THE CO DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
NEW GUWAHATI CO DISTRICT
HEGRABARI ROAD LICHUBAGAN GUWAHATI DIST KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM PIN 781036
4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE ULUBARI GUWAHATI DIST KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM PIN 781007
------------
Advocate for : MR. T DEURI
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
Linked Case : WP(C)/2221/2025
Page No.# 16/32
SRI SANKAR SINGH
S/O- LATE RAMJEE SINGH
VILL- ULUBARI (BIRUBARI)
DR. B.R.AMEDKAR NAGAR
MOUZA- ULUBARI
P.S- PALTAN BAZAR
DIST- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAN
REVENUE DEPT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006
ASSAM.
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP (M)
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI- 781036
ASSAM.
3:THE CO-DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
NEW GUWAHATI CO-DISTRICT
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI- 781036.
4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI- 781007.
------------
Advocate for :
Advocate for : SC
REVENUE appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
Linked Case : WP(C)/2134/2025
BAKUL GHOSH
Page No.# 17/32
SON OF LATE SURENDRA KUMAR GHOSH
VILLAGE- ULUBARI (BIRUBARI)
DR. B. R. AMEDKAR NAGAR
ULUBARI
PALTAN BAZAR
KAMRUP METRO
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 METRO
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI-781036
ASSAM
3:THE CO-DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
NEW GUWAHATI CO-DISTRICT
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)/2229/2025
MANJU DEVI
W/O- LATE DILIP SINGH
R/O- VILL-ULUBARI (BIRUBARI)
DR. B.R. AMEDKAR NAGAR
MOUZA- ULUBARI
P.S.- PALTAN BAZAR
Page No.# 18/32
DIST- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
REVENUE DEPT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006
ASSAM.
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP (M)
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI- 781036
ASSAM.
3:THE CO-DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
NEW GUWAHATI CO- DISTRICT
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI- 781036.
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 : WP(C)/2220/2025
MAYA RANI BANIA
W/O-LATE PRADIP KANU
R/O- VILL- ULUBARI (BIRUBARI)
DR. B. R. AMEDKAR NAGAR
MOUZA-ULUBARI
P.S- PALTAN BAZAR
DIST-KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
VERSUS
Page No.# 19/32
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781036
ASSAM
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP (M)
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI-781036
ASSAM
3:THE CO-DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
NEW GUWAHATI CO- DISTRICT
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)/2130/2025
SMTI TUTUMONI HAZARIKA
SON OF LATE MRINAL HAZARIKA
ULUBARI
(BIRUBARI)
DR BR AMEDKAR NAGAR
ULUBARI
PALTAN BAZAR
KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT
Page No.# 20/32
OF ASSAM
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI 6
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP METRO
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI-36
ASSAM
3:THE CO DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
NEW GUWAHATI CO DISTRICT
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI-36
4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI-7
------------
Advocate for : MD. A MATLIB
Advocate for : SC. REVENUE appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
Linked Case : WP(C)/2132/2025
NILIMA ROY
WIFE OF LATE BIKRANT KUMAR ROY
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- ULUBARI (BIRUBARI)
DR. B. R. AMEDKAR NAGAR
ULUBARI
PALTAN BAZAR
KAMRUP METRO
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
Page No.# 21/32
KAMRUP METRO
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI-781036
ASSAM
3:THE CO-DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
NEW GUWAHATI CO-DISTRICT
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
Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
Advocates for the petitioners: Shri NNB Choudhury (in WP(C) 2128/2025)
Shri R. Dhar, (in WP(C) 2130/2132, 2133, 2134, 2220,
2221, 2223, 2228, 2229 & 2231 of 2025)
Shri T. Deuri (in WP(C) 2188, 2189, 2191, 2194, 2195,
2197, 2198 & 2201 of 2025)
Advocates for respondents : Shri R. Borpujari, SC, Revenue & DM Deptt,
Shri S.R. Baruah, GA, Assam.
Date of hearing : 02.09.2025
Date of judgment : 18.09.2025
Page No.# 22/32
JUDGMENT & ORDER
In this batch of writ petitions, the challenge is against identical orders
dated 26.03.2025 passed by the District Commissioner, Kamrup Metropolitan
District, whereby the petitions for settlement of land submitted by the respective
petitioners have been rejected and further action has been directed to be taken
in accordance with law. For ready reference, the Speaking Order of one of the
petitioners which is identical is extracted herein below:
"Whereas, The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in its Judgement on the Writ
Petition Case No.: W.P. (C)3715/2020 had directed the District
Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro) District to give an opportunity for hearing
to the concerned petitioner(s).
Whereas, the District Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro) District had
authorized the Co-District Commissioner, New Guwahati Co-District to
conduct individual hearing to the petitioners vide order no KRS.
186/2022/2, dated. 09/01/2025.
Accordingly, the Co-District Commissioner, New Guwahati Co-District
submitted his report vide no. KRS.1746/2022/69, dated. 19/03/2025.
Whereas, the disputed government land has been reserved for "T.В.
Hospital" and the applicant is in unauthorized possession of the land and
had submitted application for settlement.
Whereas, the enquiry by the Co-District Commissioner, New Guwahati Co-
District concluded that the settlement petition of the petitioner is not
acceptable as per the Land Policy, 2019 and rules thereof.
Therefore, in view of the above, the settlement petition of Sri Mrinal
Hazarika, S/o Late Gunakar Hazarika is hereby rejected and disposed off.
Page No.# 23/32
The Circle Officer, Guwahati Revenue Circle is directed to take further
necessary action in accordance with law.
Inform all concern."
2. As per the facts projected, the petitioners are in occupation of various
plots of land covered by Dag No. 97 in Village: Ulubari, Mouza: Ulubari and
Circle: Guwahati Revenue Circle since a long period of time and are having
residential houses over the said plots. It is not in dispute that the plots of land
under question is Khas land. The petitioners claim to have submitted application
for settlement of the land which is under their possession. Few of the petitioners
had also approached this Court in a number of writ petitions earlier which were
disposed of vide order dated 07.11.2024 whereby a specific direction was given
to give personal hearing to the aggrieved parties by the District Commissioner
or his authorized representative and thereafter to pass Speaking Order. It is in
connection with the aforesaid direction that a hearing had taken place
culminating in the Speaking Orders dated 26.03.2025 which are the subject
matters of challenge in this batch of writ petitions.
3. I have heard Shri N.N.B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners in
WP(C)/2128/2025, Shri R. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner in
WP(C)/2130, 2132, 2133, 2134, 2220, 2221, 2223, 2228, 2229 and 2231 of
2025 and Shri T. Deuri, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)/2188,
2189,2191, 2194, 2195, 2197, 2198 and 2201 of 2025. I have also heard Shri R.
Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department & DM Department
and Shri S.R. Baruah, Government Advocate, Assam.
4. Shri R. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the
premises on which the application for settlement of the land has been rejected,
Page No.# 24/32
namely, that the area of land covered by Dag No. 97 is reserved for the T.B.
Hospital which has been subsequently converted to be in the name of second
Medical College Hospital is erroneous. It is submitted that at no point of time,
the plot of land under Dag No. 97 was reserved for the T.B. Hospital. It is
submitted that there are many individuals who have been allotted plots of land
within the said Dag No. 97. He has cited specific examples including one Arun
Kr. Singh who vide order dated 03.01.2022 has been settled with an area of 1
katha 5 lessa in the said Dag. It is submitted that the aforesaid action of the
respondent authorities would establish that the plot of land covered by Dag
No.97 is not allotted or settled in the name of the Hospital. The learned counsel
has also drawn the attention of this Court to another such settlement order in
favour of one Smti. Firoza Begum vide order dated 17.03.2022 issued by the
SDO(S). He has submitted that the impugned order dated 26.03.2025 is not a
Speaking Order as the documents which were submitted by the petitioners were
not examined in the proper perspective. He has also submitted that the relevant
factors have not been taken into consideration and the rejection has been done
on extraneous and irrelevant factors. He has accordingly submitted that the
Speaking Orders dated 26.03.2025 are liable to be interfered with.
5. Supporting the submissions made by Shri Dhar, the learned counsel, Shri
NNB Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C)/2128/2025 has
drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 07.11.2024 passed in a
batch of writ petitions, the lead case being WP(C)/3715/2020. He has admitted
that the present petitioners were parties in that proceeding and pursuant to the
said order, they had submitted a representations on 19.11.2024. He has
submitted that while the cases of the petitioners were rejected by the impugned
Speaking Order dated 26.03.2025, few other people possessing plots of land
Page No.# 25/32
covered by Dag No. 97 have been given settlement. He has submitted that in
the orders of settlement, there is reference to High Court's order. He has
submitted that though there were orders of the High Court for consideration,
there was no direction, as such to give settlement and therefore, in the garb of
the order of this Court, the illegality has been done. He has also submitted that
in few of the cases, the Patta has also been issued. He has submitted that the
plot of land covered by Dag No. 97 is not fully reserved for the T.B. Hospital. He
has cited specific examples of one Madan Biswas and Bankim Biswas who have
been granted Patta over the said plot of land. He has submitted that action for
reconversion has been taken only in case of Arun Kumar Singh, who was also
given settlement of land within the said Dag. He has submitted that the land in
the possession of the petitioner is outside the boundary of the T.B. Hospital. He
has also submitted that in the Speaking Order dated 26.03.2025, there is no
reflection that the representation of the petitioners were indeed considered.
6. Drawing the attention of this Court to the Chitha which has been brought
on record, the learned counsel has submitted that the said Chitha is only for
three years which will not meet the requirement to prove that the land in
question covered by Dag No. 97 was indeed reserved for the T.B. Hospital. He
has endorsed the submission made by Sri Dhar, the learned counsel for the
petitioners [in WP(C)/2130, 2132, 2133, 2134, 2220, 2221, 2223, 2228, 2229
and 2231 of 2025] that certain orders of the High Court were taken as an
excuse for giving settlement to different individuals on extraneous basis even
though there was no such direction of this Court to give settlement.
7. Sri Deuri, the learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C)/2188, 2189,
2191, 2194, 2195, 2197, 2198 and 2201 of 2025 has drawn the attention of this
Court to the Land Policy of 2019, more particularly Clause 14 thereof which is
Page No.# 26/32
on the aspect of settlement and reservation of land in towns. He has submitted
that the petitioners do not have any homestead land or land in rural area. He
has also drawn the attention of this Court to Regulation 12 of the Assam Land
and Revenue Regulation as per which, power has been vested to make Rules.
He has submitted that the land in question can be considered for allotment.
8. In support of his submission, Sri Deuri, the learned counsel has relied
upon the case of Olga Tellis and Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation
and Ors., reported in AIR 1986 SC 180 wherein the right to livelihood has
been held to be embodied in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He has also
highlighted the aspect of the bona fide right to claim possession and also the
facet of providing alternative accommodation. Reliance has also been put upon
the case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab
Khan and Ors. reported in AIR 1997 SC 152 wherein the aspect of Articles
19 (1)(e) and 21 have been taken into consideration. He has submitted that the
petitioners have been living over the plot of land for more than 20 years and
therefore even in case of their dispossession, alternative arrangements are to be
directed to be made by the respondent -State.
9. Per contra, Sri R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue
Department has submitted that there is no ground to challenge the Speaking
Orders dated 26.03.2025. By drawing the attention of this Court to the affidavit-
in-Opposition dated 19.06.2025 filed in WP(C)/2130/2025, the learned Standing
Counsel has submitted that each of the petitioners were given an individual
hearing on their prayer for settlement which was the direction passed by this
Court in Order dated 07.11.2024. He has submitted that pursuant to the
applications / representations submitted by the respective petitioners, their
statements were recorded and a report was made by the Co-District
Page No.# 27/32
Commissioner on 19.03.2025. In the said report, there is a clear finding that the
land covered by Dag No. 97 is reserved for the T.B. Hospital. He has also drawn
the attention of this Court to Section 14.3 of the Land Policy. He has submitted
that initially a notice was issued which was not in consonance with the earlier
direction of this Court and accordingly the said notice was recalled on
16.05.2025.
10. The learned Standing Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the
Chitha, more particularly the aspect of Montobyo (Remark) wherein it has been
stated that it is reserved for TB hospital. He has submitted that it is a settled
position of law that the entries in revenue record are to be presumed to be
correct until and unless any contrary materials are produced which is not done
in the instant case. As regards the Minutes of Meeting dated 19.02.2022, he has
submitted that the same is relevant for the present plot of land only for the
change of nomenclature as earlier it was reserved for the TB Hospital and
subsequently, the same has been said to be reserved for a second medical
college, namely, Pragjyotishpur Medical College. He has also submitted that
pursuant to the said meeting, an order was issued on 11.03.2022 with the new
nomenclature as Pragjyotishpur Medical College. He has submitted that under
Dag No. 97, there is approximately 34 Bighas of land. He has submitted that the
earlier Land Policy of 1989 has been repealed in 2019 and replaced by a new
policy.
11. By drawing the attention of this Court to the consolidated affidavit filed on
12.08.2025, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that so far incumbent
Arun Kr. Singh is concerned, he along with two others were considered for
settlement erroneously and on detection of such error, steps have been taken.
So far as two other incumbents Hamida Khatun and Firoza Begum are
Page No.# 28/32
concerned, their process of settlement was also taken erroneously which has
been rectified. As regards the cases of Madan Biswas and Bankim Biswas, the
process was erroneously taken up which has already culminated in making
settlement and they are presently enjoying the status of settlement holder. He
has referred to the communication dated 01.04.2025 issued by the District
Commissioner to the Revenue Department and has submitted that
recommendation has been made for cancellation of the settlement proposals in
favour of Arun Kr. Singh and two others and a similar communication has been
made for Raj Kishore Purbey. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the
communication dated 15.07.2021 for incumbents, Madan Biswas and Bankim
Biswas. He has fairly admitted that the order of the High Court was wrongly put
as 10.01.2020 instead of 10.06.2020 and it appears that such settlement was
done hastily for extraneous purposes. In any case, actions have been taken for
cancellation of the recommendations.
12. The learned Standing Counsel has however submitted that illegalities
which have been done would not vest any right to the present petitioners as the
right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India is a positive right and cannot
be applied for negative equality.
13. Coming to the case of WP(C)/2128/2025, the learned Standing Counsel
has submitted that in the statement of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2, they have
clearly admitted of encroaching Government land. Further the petitioner no. 3
has stated that he is a resident of Bihar and had come to Assam. He has
submitted that all the petitioners were duly served with notices through
Jarikarak and they were given adequate opportunity of hearing and individual
report has been submitted by the Co-District Commissioner after making
enquiry. He has highlighted the aspect that in each of the writ petitions,
Page No.# 29/32
separate affidavits have been filed.
14. Coming to the Rules, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that as
per Rule 15, no right, as such is vested for settlement and as per Rule 16, there
is prohibition to enter into land unless there is a lease or a written permission.
He has submitted that under Rule 1 (2) (b) "Wasteland" has been defined and
under Rule 18 (2), ejectment of any person can be made who has entered
Government Khas land or wasteland for amongst others, 'for other public
purposes'. It is submitted that in the writ petition, there is no statement that the
petitioners are otherwise landless. On being pointed out that such statement is
there in the reply affidavit, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that in
the statement made before the authorities, there was no such assertion that the
petitioners were indeed landless.
15. The rival submissions advanced have been duly considered and the
materials placed before this Court have been carefully perused.
16. The present impugned order dated 26.03.2025 is the culmination of a
process which was initiated pursuant to a judgment dated 07.11.2024 passed by
this Court in a batch of writ petitions, the lead case being WP(C)/3715/2020. In
the said judgment, the following directions were given.
"(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
Page No.# 30/32
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."
17. Amongst the aforesaid directions, there is a specific direction that the
petitioners are to be given a hearing by the District Commissioner or through
authorized representatives and thereafter Speaking Orders are required to be
passed. It may be mentioned that the aforesaid direction of this Court was not
the subject matter of any further challenge and has attained finality.
18. It appears that in pursuance to the said direction, the affected parties had
submitted representations and based on the representations which were for
settlement of the land, the Co-District Commissioner had made an enquiry
which was followed by a report dated 19.03.2025. The said report was taken
into consideration and each of the petitioners were given personal hearing and
their statements were also recorded. The impugned order dated 26.03.2025
clearly mentions that the direction of this Court passed in WP(C)/3715/2020 was
Page No.# 31/32
duly followed by which opportunity was granted to the petitioners for a hearing
whereafter the Co-District Commissioner had conducted individual hearings vide
order dated 09.01.2025 and had submitted report on 19.03.2025. There is a
clear finding that the land in question is Government land which is reserved for
the TB Hospital and the petitioners were unauthorizedly possessing the land. It
is under those circumstances that the petitions filed by the petitioners for
settlement of the land as per the existing Land Policy of 2019 was found to be
unacceptable and accordingly rejected.
19. The materials on record would clearly show that the area of land covered
by Dag No. 97 which encompasses about 34 Bighas approximately is reserved
for the TB Hospital which has been subsequently changed to be reserved for the
Pragjyotishpur Medical College. It however appears that the petitioners are
staking claim that some parts of the land have been settled with different
individuals and in this regard specific examples / instances have been given. So
far as the incumbents Arun Kumar Singh, Hamida Khatun, Firoza Begum and
Raj Kishore Purbey are concerned, the learned Standing Counsel, Revenue
Department has fairly conceded that there have been certain aberrations in the
aspect of making settlements in favour of certain individuals for which measures
have been taken for withdrawal of the recommendation. As mentioned above,
there are specific communications of 01.04.2025 for cancellation of the
recommendation in favour of those incumbents. This Court finds force in the
contention of the learned Standing Counsel that the rights under Article 14 is a
positive right and there is no concept of any negative equality. At the same
time, settlement of land for two incumbents namely, Madan Biswas and Bankim
Biswas which has been said to be done cannot be left like this, more so, when
the entire plot of land covered by Dag No. 97 has been stated to be reserved for
Page No.# 32/32
the Pragjyotishpur Medical College. If any settlement has been done in violation
of the Rules, such settlement cannot be treated to be legal and only because of
the fact that certain incumbents have attained the status of settlement holder
would not debar the State authorities for taking appropriate action for recalling
such settlement. Since it is the specific stand of the Department that the entire
area of about 34 Bighas covered by Dag No. 97 is reserved for the hospital,
overwhelming public interest would require that the entire plot should be made
encroachment free so that the proposed hospital can be constructed which
would cater to the public at large.
20. While this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners have not been able
to make out any case for interference with the Speaking Orders dated
26.03.2025, it is directed that any settlement proposed or given within the
aforesaid Dag No. 97 are to be cancelled by following the due process of law
and necessary process be initiated and completed within a time bound frame.
This Court also observes that if the petitioners apply for settlement of any other
land suitable for such settlement, the same would be considered by the
respondent authorities as per the existing land settlement policy.
21. Accordingly, all the writ petitions stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
