[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Nur Mohammad Ali vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors on 2 April, 2026
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010052412026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1563/2026
NUR MOHAMMAD ALI
S/O LT. ABDUL RAHMAN ALIAS ABDUR RAHMAN, R/O HAKAMA PART-V,
BILASIPARA, DISTRICT - DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN-783348.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
TO BE REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
DISTRICT DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN-783301.
3:SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (CIVIL)
BILASIPARA
P.O.- BILASIPARA
PIN- 783348.
4:CIRCLE OFFICER
BILASIPARA REVENUE CIRCLE
BILASIPARA
ASSAM
PIN-783348.
5:SIDDIQUE ALI
S/O LT. HATEM ALI
R/O VILLAGE- CHARUABAKRA
P.S.- CHAPAR
Page No.# 2/5
DISTRICT- DHUBRI
PIN-783371.
6:AHMED ALI
S/O AJGAR ALI ALIAS AZHAR ALI
R/O VILLAGE- CHARUABAKRA
P.S.- CHAPAR
DISTRICT- DHUBRI
PIN-783371.
7:AMINUR HAQUE
S/O LT. HATEM ALI
R/O VILLAGE- CHARUABAKRA
P.S.- CHAPAR
DISTRICT- DHUBRI
PIN-783371
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. I. S. Mazarbhuiyan, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R. Borpujari, SC, Revenue
Mr. H. Sarmah, Addl. Sr. GA
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
02.04.2026
Issue notice making it returnable on 18.05.2026.
2. Mr. R. Barpujari, the learned counsel accepts notice on behalf
of the Respondent No.1 and Mr. H. Sarmah, the learned counsel
accepts notice on behalf of the Respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4. Extra
copies of the writ petition be served upon them during the course
of the day.
3. As regards to the Respondent Nos.5, 6 & 7, the petitioner is
directed to take steps by way of speed post by 04.04.2026.
Page No.# 3/5
4. The petitioner is also granted the liberty to take steps upon
the Respondent Nos.5, 6 & 7 by way of dasti routed through the
Registry of this Court and file an affidavit of service on or before
the next date. The petitioner should ensure that the service upon
the Respondent Nos.5, 6 & 7 is effected by way of dasti on or
before 06.05.2026.
5. The case of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner's
grandfather was in occupation of the land which was originally a
part of the Coch-Begila Zamindari Estate and the petitioner's
grandfather was a tenant of the said land. After the death of his
grandfather, the petitioner's father and then the petitioner
continued to enjoy the same and presently is in possession.
6. It is the further case of the petitioner that after coming into
effect of the Assam State Acquisition of Zamindaries Act, 1951 (for
short, 'the Act of 1951'), the ownership of the land vested with the
Government of Assam and by virtue of Section 9 of the said Act of
1951, the petitioner's grandfather became a ryot and was issued a
final Khatian on 01.11.1961. It is the case of the petitioner that by
virtue of Section 4(1) of the Assam Land Holding (Adoption of
Relationship under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886
in the acquired Permanently Settled Estate) Act, 1974, (for short,
'the Act of 1974'), the status of the petitioner's grandfather was
that of a landholder.
Page No.# 4/5
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
further submitted that even assuming for argument's sake that the
status of the petitioner's grandfather was not that of a landholder
by virtue of Section 4(1) of the Act of 1974, but the petitioner's
grandfather as well as his successor-in-interest are statutory
tenants under the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act,
1971 by virtue of 4(2) of the Act of 1974. The learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that though
inadvertently and on wrong advice application was filed for
settlement which was not necessary, but the Respondent
Authorities have granted the settlement of the land in favour of the
Respondent Nos.5, 6 & 7 wherein the petitioner has been enjoying
rights of statutory tenant, and it is under such circumstances, the
petitioner has approached this Court.
8. The question is as to whether the petitioner or his
predecessor-in-interest would have the right of a land holder or
that of a statutory tenant under the Act of 1971 is a question to be
decided. It is, however, the prima facie opinion of this Court that in
case the petitioner or his predecessor-in-interest came within the
ambit of Section 4(1) of the Act of 1974, their status would be that
of a landholder, and in the circumstance, the petitioner came within
the ambit of Section 4(2) of the Act of 1974, they would be
statutory tenants under the Act of 1971 and further they would
Page No.# 5/5
have rights under Section 23 of the Act of 1971 to claim
ownership.
9. The Respondents shall bring on record their stand by filing
affidavits on or before 10.05.2026.
10. This Court also duly takes note of the submission made by
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that
there is an apprehension on the part of the petitioner that in view
of the land having been settled in favour of the Respondent Nos.5,
6 &7, the State Authorities may evict the petitioner. It is the
opinion of this Court that the power to evict in terms with Rule 18
of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and
Revenue Regulation, 1886 is only limited to the Government lands
and as settlement has been made in favour of the Respondent
Nos.5, 6 & 7, the State cannot exercise the powers under Section
18 of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and
Revenue Regulation, 1886 in respect to the lands wherein
allotments/settlements have been made in favour of the
Respondent Nos.5, 6 &7.
11. List accordingly.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
