Page No.# 1/19 vs The Bodoland Territorial Region And 3 ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 783 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/19 vs The Bodoland Territorial Region And 3 ... on 5 February, 2026

                                                                   Page No.# 1/19

GAHC010244032024




                                                             2026:GAU-AS:1493

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

                          Case No. : WP(C)/6092/2024

         PRABIN BORO AND 33 ORS
         S/O LATE SONESWAR BORO
         R/O WARD NO. 1, T.B. ROAD, TANGLA, DIST. UDALGURI, BTR, ASSAM, PIN-
         784521

         2: SRI NABIN CHANDRA BRAHMA
          S/O LATE JNANENDRA BRAHMA
         R/O WARD NO. 1
         T.B. ROAD

         TANGLA
         DIST. UDALGURI
         BTR
         ASSAM
         PIN- 784521

         3: SRI PRANENDU BIKASH GHOSH
          S/O SRI MANTU LAL GHOSH
         R/O TANGLA TOWN
         WARD NO. 1
          MOUZA- DAKUA
          P.O.AND P.S. TANGLA
         DIST. UDALGURI
         ASSAM

         4: SRI MUSAFIR SAHANI
          S/O LATE GIRIBAL SAHANI
         R/O TANGLA TOWN
         WARD NO. 1
          MOUZA- DAKUA
          P.O.AND P.S. TANGLA
         DIST. UDALGURI
         ASSAM
                                 Page No.# 2/19

5: SRI CHAMPA LAL PINCHA
 S/O LATE ASH KARAN PINCHA
R/O TANGLA TOWN
WARD NO. 1
 MOUZA- DAKUA
 P.O.AND P.S. TANGLA
DIST. UDALGURI
ASSAM

6: SRI BIJOY AGARWALLA
 S/O LATE BALACHAND AGARWALLA
R/O TANGLA TOWN
WARD NO. 1
 MOUZA- DAKUA
 P.O.AND P.S. TANGLA
DIST. UDALGURI
ASSAM

7: SRI ASHOK SAHA
 S/O SRI SURESH CHANDRA SAHA
R/O TANGLA TOWN
WARD NO. 1
 MOUZA- DAKUA
 P.O.AND P.S. TANGLA
DIST. UDALGURI
ASSAM

8: SRI UPENDRA PRASAD
 S/O LATE RAGHU NATH PRASAD
R/O TANGLA TOWN
WARD NO. 1
 MOUZA- DAKUA
 P.O.AND P.S. TANGLA
DIST. UDALGURI
ASSAM

9: SRI SANJAY MORE
 S/O LATE RAM GOPAL MORE
R/O TANGLA TOWN
WARD NO. 1
 MOUZA- DAKUA
 P.O.AND P.S. TANGLA
DIST. UDALGURI
ASSAM

10: SRI SUDIP SAHA
 S/O LATE BHABANI SAHA
R/O TANGLA TOWN
                                 Page No.# 3/19

WARD NO. 1
MOUZA- DAKUA
P.O.AND P.S. TANGLA
DIST. UDALGURI
ASSAM

11: SRI ARUN CHOWDHURY
 S/O LATE CHANDU CHOUDHURY
R/O TANGLA TOWN
WARD NO. 1
 MOUZA- DAKUA
 P.O.AND P.S. TANGLA
DIST. UDALGURI
ASSAM

12: SRI KAILASH AGARWALA
 S/O LATE BAL CHAND AGARWALA
R/O TANGLA TOWN
WARD NO. 1
 MOUZA- DAKUA
 P.O.AND P.S. TANGLA
DIST. UDALGURI
ASSAM

13: SRI SITARAM CHOWDHURY
 S/O LATE MISTRILAL CHOWDHURY
R/O TANGLA TOWN
WARD NO. 1
 MOUZA- DAKUA
 P.O.AND P.S. TANGLA
DIST. UDALGURI
ASSAM

14: SRI PRANABESH PAUL
 S/O LATE PRABITRA PAUL
R/O TANGLA TOWN
WARD NO. 1
 MOUZA- DAKUA
 P.O.AND P.S. TANGLA
DIST. UDALGURI
ASSAM

15: SRI DIPAK KUNDU
 S/O LATE NITYARANJANKUNDU
R/O TANGLA TOWN
WARD NO. 1
 MOUZA- DAKUA
 P.O.AND P.S. TANGLA
                             Page No.# 4/19

DIST. UDALGURI
ASSAM

16: SRI DILJIT KAUR
 S/O LATE SARBAN SINGH
R/O TANGLA TOWN
WARD NO. 1
 MOUZA- DAKUA
 P.O.AND P.S. TANGLA
DIST. UDALGURI
ASSAM

17: SRI GAUTAM SAHA
 S/O ANANDA SAHA
R/O TANGLA TOWN
WARD NO. 1
 MOUZA- DAKUA
 P.O.AND P.S. TANGLA
DIST. UDALGURI
ASSAM

18: SRI SIVA SANKAR GUPTA
 S/O LATE MADHU GUPTA
R/O TANGLA TOWN
WARD NO. 1
 MOUZA- DAKUA
 P.O.AND P.S. TANGLA
DIST. UDALGURI
ASSAM

19: NIVA SARKAR
W/O LT. NANTU SARKAR
R/O TANGLA TOWN
WARD NO. 1
 MOUZA- DAKUA
 P.O.AND P.S. TANGLA
DIST. UDALGURI
ASSAM

20: SRI RAKESH DUTTA
 S/O HAREKRISHNA DUTTA
R/O TANGLA TOWN
WARD NO. 1
 MOUZA- DAKUA
 P.O.AND P.S. TANGLA
DIST. UDALGURI
ASSAM
                                 Page No.# 5/19

21: SRI SOBODH SAHA
 S/O LATE SURESH CHANDRA SAHA
R/O TANGLA TOWN
WARD NO. 3
 MOUZA- DAKUA
 P.O. AND P.S. TANGLA
DIST. UDALGURI
ASSAM

22: SRI SHIBULAL SAHA
 S/O LATE HARIPADA SAHA
R/O TANGLA TOWN
WARD NO. 3
 MOUZA- DAKUA
 P.O. AND P.S. TANGLA
DIST. UDALGURI
ASSAM

23: DIPIKA KUNDU
W/O LATE JAYDEV KUNDU
R/O TANGLA TOWN
WARD NO. 3
 MOUZA- DAKUA
 P.O. AND P.S. TANGLA
DIST. UDALGURI
ASSAM

24: SRI ASHOK PAUL
 S/O LATE JATINDRA MOHAN PAUL
R/O TANGLA TOWN
WARD NO. 3
 MOUZA- DAKUA
 P.O. AND P.S. TANGLA
DIST. UDALGURI
ASSAM

25: SAHADEV KUNDU
 S/OLT. NIRYARANJAN KUNDU
R/O TANGLA TOWN
WARD NO. 3
 MOUZA- DAKUA
 P.O. AND P.S. TANGLA
DIST. UDALGURI
ASSAM

26: SRI NIRMAL SARKAR
 S/O LATE NIKHIL SARKAR
R/O TANGLA TOWN
                               Page No.# 6/19

WARD NO. 3
MOUZA- DAKUA
P.O. AND P.S. TANGLA
DIST. UDALGURI
ASSAM

27: SR SANJAY PAUL
 S/O LATE NARAHARI PAUL
R/O TANGLA TOWN
WARD NO. 3
 MOUZA- DAKUA
 P.O. AND P.S. TANGLA
DIST. UDALGURI
ASSAM

28: SRI SUNIL DEVNATH
 S/O LATE KHIROD DEVNATH
R/O TANGLA TOWN
WARD NO. 3
 MOUZA- DAKUA
 P.O. AND P.S. TANGLA
DIST. UDALGURI
ASSAM

29: SRI GOPAL KANU
 S/O LATE SHIUL PRASAD KANU
R/O TANGLA TOWN
WARD NO. 3
 MOUZA- DAKUA
 P.O. AND P.S. TANGLA
DIST. UDALGURI
ASSAM

30: SMTI. MAYA RANI PAUL
W/O LATE NARAYAN PAUL
R/O WARD NO. 1 TANGLA TOWN
 MOUZA- DAKUA
 DIST. UDALGURI
 BTR
ASSAM

31: SRI SUDIPTA KAR
 S/O LATE NITYNANDA KAR
R/O WARD NO. 1 TANGLA TOWN
 MOUZA- DAKUA
 DIST. UDALGURI
 BTR
ASSAM
                                                    Page No.# 7/19


32: SRI BINOY BHUSAN ROY
 S/O LATE BIDHU BHUSHAN ROY
R/O WARD NO. 1 TANGLA TOWN
 MOUZA- DAKUA
 DIST. UDALGURI
 BTR
ASSAM

33: SMTI. SARASATI MONDAL
W/O SRI MANIK MONDAL
R/O WARD NO. 1 TANGLA TOWN
 MOUZA- DAKUA
 DIST. UDALGURI
 BTR
ASSAM

34: SRI ANIL CHANDRA KAR
 S/O LATE MAHENDRA KAR
R/O WARD NO. 1 TANGLA TOWN
 MOUZA- DAKUA
 DIST. UDALGURI
 BTR
ASSA

VERSUS

THE BODOLAND TERRITORIAL REGION AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, BODOLAND
TERRITORIAL COUNCIL, SECRETARIAT, BODOFA NAGAR, NOKRAJHAR
BODOLAND TERRITORIA REGION (BTR), ASSAM

2:THE GENERAL MANAGER

NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI
ASSAM.

3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

UDALGURI
DIST. UDALGURI
BTR
ASSAM

4:THE ESTATE OFFICER
                                                                            Page No.# 8/19

             RANGIA
             REPRESENTED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER-III
             N.F. RAILWAY
             RANGIA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR D K DAS, MR. M KHATANIAR

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, BTC, MR. R K D CHOUDHURY (DY.S.G.I.),DY.S.G.I.,GA,
ASSAM




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


                    Date on which judgment is reserved        : N/A
                    Date of pronouncement of judgment         : 05.02.2026
                    Whether the pronouncement is of
                    the operative of the judgment?            : No


                    Whether the full judgment has been
                    pronounced?                               : Yes


                                 JUDGEMENT (Oral)

Heard Mr. M. Khataniar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. M. K. Das, learned Standing Counsel, BTC, for respondent No. 1; Mr. R. K. D. Choudhury, learned DSGI for respondent Nos. 2 & 4; and Mr. D. Bora, learned State Counsel for respondent No. 3.

2. Challenge made in the present proceedings is to the notice of termination Page No.# 9/19

of temporary occupation of land license agreement dated 18.01.2024, issued by the Estate Officer, Rangia, N.F. Railway, whereby the petitioners have been directed to vacate the land, remove all materials and buildings and to restore the land to its original state by handing it over to the Northeast Frontier Railway within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The petitioners have also prayed for a direction to frame a separate rehabilitation scheme by providing them with alternative accommodation in other available spaces in and around Tangla Railway Station, in the event they are dispossessed from the plots presently under their occupations.

3. The petitioners, 34 in numbers, claim to be residents of Tangla Town in and around Tangla Railway Station for the last 50-60 years and earning their livelihoods by doing petty businesses. They claims to have under the possession of the land belonging to the North East Frontier Railway by entering into license agreements with the North East Frontier Railway. Upon execution of such agreements, the petitioners were issued licenses for temporary occupation of the land for commercial purposes for different periods. Thereafter, they have been paying the annual license fees from time to time. Some of the petitioners have also applied for transfer of the licenses in their names, as the original licenses were issued in the names of their grandfathers or fathers, which are stated to be pending.

4. The Estate Officer, vide impugned termination notice dated 18.01.2024, directed the petitioners to vacate the land and remove all materials and buildings from the individual plots lease out to them as the land leased out to the petitioners are required for Government of India scheme, namely, the Amrit Page No.# 10/19

Bharat Station Scheme.

5. It is the contention of the petitioners that for implementation of the Amrit Bharat Station Scheme, only land within a radius of 200 feet around Tangla Railway Station is required for providing amenities to the passengers. According to the petitioners, their petty shops and residential structures are situated beyond the said 200 feet radius. The petitioners and their ancestors have been residing in the area and running the petty shops for the last 50-60 years, thereby providing daily amenities to railway passengers at affordable rates. It is also contended that the land presently under the possession of the petitioners was a jungle, which was cleared by their forefathers for establishment of Tangla Railway Station. In recognition of the role played by their forefathers, who were the pioneers in clearing the jungle for establishment of Tangla Railway Station, temporary occupation licenses were granted in their favour and license agreements were accordingly executed, pursuant to which the forefathers of the petitioners regularly paid the annual license fees without any default.

6. Some of the petitioners have approached the Civil Court by filing a title suit, being T.S. No. 07 of 2024, along with Misc (J) Case No. 06/2024, seeking an injunction restraining the respondents from disturbing their possession of the land in question. However, although an interim injunction was granted on 01.02.2024, the same was subsequently vacated on 10.09.2024 upon dismissal of Misc. (J) Case No. 06/2024.

7. The petitioners submitted a representation dated 18.11.2024 before the BTC authorities. It is stated that the BTC authorities, upon consideration, directed the Deputy Commissioner, Udalguri, to take up the matter with the Railway authorities, observing that there are enough land in and around the Page No.# 11/19

Tangla Railway Station for implementation of the Amrit Bharat Station Scheme without disturbing the possession of the petitioners, as it would have negative impact on the socio-economic conditions of the petitioners, being the weaker sections of the society.

8. Mr. Khataniar, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners have been in possession of their respective plots of land for last 50- 60 years, for which temporary occupation land license agreements were executed with the Railway authorities. The petitioners are running petty businesses for their livelihood, which provided benefits to the passenger for their petty needs in and around the Tangla Railway Station. The petitioners have been regularly paying the annual license fees from time to time without any default.

9. He submits that the Estate Officer, N.F. Railway, while issuing the impugned notice of termination of land license agreements, has failed to follow the due procedure of law as prescribed under Section 3A and other relevant provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 inasmuch as the impugned notices have been issued directly directing the petitioners to vacate the land. The impugned notices do not record any finding or satisfaction that the petitioners are unauthorized or illegal occupants. He submits that the petitioners are entitled to be issued show-cause notices before passing the order of termination and issuing directions to vacate the land. Therefore, the impugned notices have been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice.

Page No.# 12/19

10. Mr. Khataniar, learned counsel for the petitioners, while placing reliance on the case of Abdul Mateen Siddiqui Vs. Union of India & Ors. [SLC (Civil) Diary No. 289/2023] and other analogous matters pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that there cannot be uprooting of people overnight. A workable arrangement is necessary to segregate people who may have no rights in the land and those who have but to be removed but coupled with schemes of rehabilitation which may already exists while recognizing the need of the Railways. Therefore, he submits that until the aforesaid matters are decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioners cannot be evicted/dispossessed from the land presently under their occupation, as the issues involved therein also pertain to eviction from land claimed to be belong to the Railways.

11. Having submitted above, Mr. Khataniar, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that in the event this Court finds that the petitioners have no right to continue the possession of the land in question, at least 30 days time may be granted to the petitioners to vacate the land and appropriate directions may be issued to the respondent authorities to take steps for rehabilitation of the petitioners by providing alternative accommodation in and around the Tangla Railway Station.

12. Mr. R. K. D. Choudhury, learned DSGI, on the other hand, submits that although the petition claims to have been filed by 34 petitioners, the particulars of only 31 persons have been furnished, while the remaining persons have neither been identified nor shown as petitioners in the present proceedings and some of the persons whose names appear are not petitioners at all. The land Page No.# 13/19

licenses were never issued for construction of dwelling house, as the same were granted purely on a temporary basis for commercial purposes only. He submits that as the land in question is urgently required by Railway authorities for development of Tangla Railway Station and adjoining areas in connection with Government of India scheme, namely, Amrit Bharat Station Scheme, the respondent authorities issued the impugned termination notices on 18.01.2024 to the license holders as per Clause 20 of the land license agreements.

13. The Clause 20 of the license agreement, according to the learned DSGI, clearly stipulates that the Government is entitled, at any time, to issue notice to the licensee of its intention to resume possession of the land and subject to the provision contained therein, the licensee is required to vacate the land, remove all materials and buildings belonging to the licensee and to restore the land to its original state within 30 days from the date of such notice and the government shall not be responsible for any inconvenience, loss or damage that may caused or done to the licensee by reason of his having to vacate the said land. Accordingly, as per the said agreement, the petitioners were directed to vacate their respective plots within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice.

14. Mr. Choudhury, learned DSGI, submits that the land in question had been licensed out by the Railway authorities long back for temporary occupation for commercial purposes and the license holders had been paying annual license fees till the termination of the Land License Agreements. Therefore, he submits that the petitioners cannot be treated as unauthorized occupants of Railway land and hence, the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Page No.# 14/19

Occupants) Act, 1971 are not applicable to the licence holders. Accordingly, the respondent authorities have initiated the proceedings as per Clause 20 of the land license agreements.

15. He submits that there are several unauthorized occupants in and around Tangla Railway Station, whose eviction are required for implementation of the Amrit Bharat Station Scheme, for which the Railway Authorities have initiated proceedings under the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 and have issued eviction notices to the said encroachers/unauthorized occupants in accordance with law. Therefore, he submits that the petitioners have no right to claim over the land in question as they were given only temporary licenses for the commercial purposes, which were liable to be terminated when the land was required for any other public purpose and in any case, the license agreements were not for dwelling house purpose and as such, there is no merit in the present writ petition and therefore, same may be dismissed.

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

17. It is evident from the materials on record that some of the petitioners were allowed to occupy specified portions of Railway land for commercial purposes, pursuant to license agreements for temporary occupation of the land executed between the Railway authorities and some of the petitioners.

18. To appreciate, the relevant clauses of the license agreements are extracted Page No.# 15/19

hereinbelow:-

"5. That the Government only agrees to give temporary occupation of the land for and the Licensee is liable to have this license cancelled at any time upon such notice as is mentioned in Clause 20."

"6. That no building of any kind shall be erected by the Licensee without the previous permission in writing from the Chief Engineer of the Northeast Frontier Railway or a duly authorized officer of the Railway, the general arrangement of such building must also be approved by the officer giving permission and such permission will in all cases, apply only to the erection of a building or buildings of a purely temporary character and all buildings erected by the Licensee on the land occupied by him under this agreement shall for the purpose of this license be regarded and treated as temporary buildings."

7. It is distinctly understood by the licensee that the Government will retain the full legal title, ownership, right of access, inspection and control over the use and disposal of the land hereby temporarily licensed to the Licensee, and that the licensee will only have physical occupation of the land subject to the above mentioned rights of the Government, and to the overriding liability of quitting and restoring even the physical occupation at the will and pleasure of the Government.

20. The Government shall be entitled at any time to give notice to the licensee of its intention to resume possession of the land and subject to the provision hereinafter contained the licensee shall vacate the land, remove all materials and building belonging to the licensee and restore the land to its original state within 30 days after the date of such notice and the Government shall not be responsible for any inconvenience, loss or damage that may be caused or done to the licensee by reason of his having to vacate on such notice..."

19. Bare perusal of the license agreement shows that the plots of land in question were leased out by Railway for temporary occupation for commercial purpose only and not for dwelling purpose. The land license agreements were purely temporary in nature and have to be renewed every year. It also reflects that the licensee/petitioners would distinctly understand that the Government will retain the full legal title, ownership, right of access, inspection and control over the use and disposal of the land thereby temporarily licensed to the Licensee and the licensee will only have physical occupation of the land subject Page No.# 16/19

to the right and authority of the Government and to the overriding liability of quitting and restoring even if the physical occupation at the will and pleasure of the Government.

20. Reading of Section 20 of the land license agreement clearly indicates that the authority at any time give notice to the licensee of its intention to resume possession of the land and subject to the provision the licensee shall vacate the land, remove all materials and building belonging to the licensee and restore the land to its original state within 30 days from the date of notice and the authority shall not be responsible for any inconvenience, loss or damage that may have been caused to the licensee by reason of his having to vacate on such notice.

21. Some of the petitioners have accepted the licenses for temporary occupation of the land in question for a specific purpose, particularly for commercial use and not for dwelling purposes. On their own volition, they have entered into an agreement with certain stipulations as prescribed in the agreement, including conditions governing resumption of possession, as referred to hereinabove. The respondent authorities issued the impugned notices as per Clause 20 of the License Agreements, which empowers the authority to issue notice to the licensee of its intention to resume possession of the land. The land in question is stated to be urgently required by the Railway authorities for development of Tangla Railway Station and the adjoining areas in connection with Government of India scheme, namely, Amrit Bharat Station Scheme, which is a scheme intended to serve the public at large.

22. It is also seen that the land in question appears to have been acquired by Page No.# 17/19

the government in the year 1913 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (now repealed). There is no dispute with regard to the title and ownership of the land in question, which undisputedly belongs to the Railway. The petitioners, having been accepted the licenses for temporary occupation of the land for a specific purpose, entered into license agreements with the condition that the licensee would vacate the land, remove all materials and buildings belonging to the licensee and restore the land to its original state in case the land is required by the government. Thus, the petitioners cannot now turn around and claim that they be first declare as unauthorized occupants and notice be issued to them under the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, which cannot be press into service as the authority has issued the impugned notice directly in accordance with the Clause 20 of the license agreement, which the petitioners have accepted without any objection.

23. Regard being had to the case pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners and upon perusal thereof, this Court is of the view that the said cases are clearly distinguishable on facts. In those cases, the petitioners are claiming rights over the land as lessees/auction purchasers and it is a case of proposed of uprooting 50 thousand people overnight. It is also seen that in those cases, there is no record to show that the land belongs to the Railways. In the present case, the petitioners are 34 in numbers that too some of whom have even not been issued license for temporary occupation of the land, while the remaining petitioners have entered into license agreements for temporary occupation and have been issued notices in terms of the Clause 20 of the license agreements. Thus, in my considered view, present case cannot be equated with the cases pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court as the facts and circumstances are Page No.# 18/19

entirely different.

24. The land in question indisputably belongs to the Railway, having been acquired by following due process of law in the year 1913. Although the petitioners have sought for rehabilitation in the event of their dispossession, such claim cannot be accepted for the reason that the petitioners are not sought to be dispossessed illegally. Rather, they have been directed to vacate the land strictly in terms of the license agreements as there is no dispute that the land belongs to the Railway and the petitioners were given license for temporary occupation for commercial purpose with a condition that in the event the land is required by the government, same shall be restored to the government. For implementation of the Amrit Bharat Station Scheme, the land temporarily occupied in and around the Tangla Railway Station is required for the interest of public at large. Thus, the question of providing any rehabilitation to the petitioners does not arise.

25. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, I am of the considered view that no relief can be granted to the petitioners, as they were allowed to occupy the land in question by way of licenses for temporary occupation pursuant to land license agreement with clear stipulations/conditions for a particular period and purpose. Consequently, I find no merit in the present petition and accordingly, the same stands dismissed.

26. However, considering the ultimate prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the respondent authorities shall provide a period of 30 (thirty) days to the petitioners for vacating the land and to remove any Page No.# 19/19

materials/structures /buildings raised thereon by the petitioners.

27. Writ petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant