[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/12 vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 13 March, 2026
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/12
GAHC010004892026
2026:GAU-AS:3716
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/211/2026
PASCHIM BELGURI JAME MASJID (BUILDING) AND 2 ORS
VILL- BELGURI KACHARIGAON, P.O- RUPAHI, P.S- RUPAHI HAT DIST-
NAGAON, ASSAM.
2: FAIZUL HOQUE
S/O- SAHA ALI
VILL- BELAGURI KACHARI GAON
P.O- RUPAHI
P.S- RUPAHI HAT
DIST- NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN- 782125.
3: MIR HUSSAIN
C/O- ARAJ ALI
VILL- BELAGURI KACHARI GAON
P.O- RUPAHI
P.S- RUPAHI HAT
DIST- NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN- 782125
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY,
REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR,
GUWAHATI -781006.
2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
NAGAON DISTRICT
ASSAM- 782001.
3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
Page No.# 2/12
SAMAGURI REVENUE CIRCLE
NAGAON DISTRICT
ASSAM- 782140.
4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
NAGAON DISTRICT
ASSAM- 782002.
5:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE
RUPAHI HAT POLICE STATION
DIST- NAGAON
ASSA
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. R. Bhuyan, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Ms. M. Barman, Jr. GA, Assam
: Mr. R. Borpujari, Standing Counsel
· Date on which Judgment was reserved : N/A
· Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 13.03.2026
· Whether the pronouncement is of
the Operative Part of the Judgment : No
· Whether the full Judgment has been
Pronounced : Yes
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. A. R. Bhuyan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the Petitioners and Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned Standing counsel
appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1. I have also heard Ms. M.
Barman, the learned Junior Government Advocate appearing on
behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5.
Page No.# 3/12
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioners against
an action initiated by the District Administration for evicting the
Petitioners on the ground that the land in question under the
occupation of the Petitioners are Village Grazing Reserve lands.
3. The facts of the instant case as it emerges from the perusal of
the writ petition is that the Petitioners had established a
permanent Mosque in a plot of land admeasuring 1 Bigha 2 Kathas
under Dag No.3 of Village Belguri under Khatowal Mouza in the
District of Nagaon. It is an admitted fact as stated in Paragraph
No.5 of the instant writ petition that the land in question is situated
under Khatowal Mouza in village Belguri and falls under Kisamat
No.3, Grazing Dag.
4. Be it as it may, the Petitioners upon setting up the permanent
Mosque on the said land, have been requesting the Government
for allotment of the said land as the said mosque caters to the
needs of the local community residing in and around the said
Masjid. Various representations in that regard have been filed from
time to time.
5. Ms. M. Barman, the learned Junior Government Advocate
submitted that on 03.12.2025, a notice was issued by the Circle
Page No.# 4/12
Officer, Samaguri Revenue Circle informing the Petitioner No.1 that
the land under their possession is a part of the Village Grazing
Reserve and they would be evicted within 15 days from the date of
the said notice. The Petitioners were also asked to submit valid
documents relating to the said land within 7 days before the Circle
Officer, Samaguri Revenue Circle and the date of the hearing was
fixed on 12.12.2025 at 11:00 AM.
6. It is the case of the Petitioners that no notice was issued
giving them an opportunity to submit their representation claiming
their right to remain in occupation of the said land under their
possession and also to contest the point that the land in question is
not VGR land. It is under such circumstances, the Petitioners have
approached this Court.
7. This Court vide an order dated 09.01.2026 passed an interim
order directing that there shall be no eviction in terms with the
notice dated 03.12.2025. The record reveals that the interim order
thereupon have been extended from time to time.
8. In the meanwhile, an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by
the Respondent No.2 stating inter alia that the land where the
Petitioner No.1 Masjid has been constructed is a VGR land, and as
Page No.# 5/12
such, formal notices were issued to those who have encroached
the VGR land at Beloguri, Kachari Gaon. It is also mentioned that
on the date fixed for hearing i.e. on 12.12.2025, the Petitioners
failed to produce any valid document/records during the time of
hearing. Further to that, it is also mentioned that the Petitioners
does not have any documentary evidence that they are landless.
The said affidavit-in-opposition was filed on 06.02.2026.
9. It is the case of the Petitioners that the land in question would
not be a VGR land unless there is a gazetted notification in that
regard containing the statutory declarations and under such
circumstances, it was mentioned that in the name of grazing
reserve, the Respondent Authorities would not be entitled to take
steps for eviction.
10. This Court has given an anxious consideration to their
respective pleadings and also heard the learned counsels
appearing on behalf of the parties.
11. The submissions so made by the learned counsels are in line
of their respective pleadings and for the sake of brevity, this Court
is not repeating the same. However, there is a submission being
made that even in VGR lands, the question of eviction may not
Page No.# 6/12
arise as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Jagpal Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others reported in
(2011) 11 SCC 396 when such VGR lands are used for community
purposes and therefore would come within the ambit of public
utility of the land.
12. In the backdrop of the above, this Court finds it very pertinent
to take note of that it is an admitted fact that the land in question
under the occupation of the Petitioners wherein the Mosque has
been established is a land which is yet to be allotted to the
Petitioners. The land in question admittedly is a Government land.
13. This Court has taken note of the Assam Land Policy, 2019 and
more particularly, Clause 6 which relates to Village Grazing Reserve
and Professional Grazing Reserve and other reserved land. A
perusal of Clause 6.1 reveals that the District Commissioners are
required to make necessary endeavour to preserve the existing
VGRs and PGRs for use by the members of the public for the
purpose for which those were constituted and encroachment of
VGRs and PGRs, if any, has to be removed. It is also mentioned
that the land under the VGRs and PGRs would not be further
decreased by way of de-reservation and allotment, etc., except for
public purposes under special circumstances as defined by Judicial
Page No.# 7/12
pronouncements. Clause 6.1 of the Assam Land Policy, 2019 being
relevant is reproduced hereunder:
"6.1. Deputy Commissioners shall make necessary endeavour to preserve the
existing V.G.Rs and P.G.Rs for use by the members of the public for the purpose
for which those were constituted and encroachment on V.G.Rs and P.G.Rs. if any,
will be removed. Henceforth, the land under V.G.Rs and P.G.Rs. will not be further
decreased by way of de-reservation and allotment etc. except for public purposes
under special circumstances as defined by Judicial pronouncements."
14. Clause 3 of the Assam Land Policy, 2019 stipulates as regards
the policy of the Government of Assam pertaining to
allotment/settlement of land for homestead purpose in rural areas.
Therefore, a reading of the Assam Land Policy, 2019 makes it
abundantly clear that it is the policy decision of the Government
not to grant allotment in Village Grazing Reserves and Professional
Grazing Reserves and other reserved lands except under special
circumstances as defined in Judicial pronouncements.
15. At this stage, this Court finds it pertinent to take note of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Singh (supra)
and more particularly to the observations made at Paragraph No.23
which is reproduced herein under:
"23. Before parting with this case we give directions to all the State
Governments in the country that they should prepare schemes for eviction of
Page No.# 8/12
illegal/unauthorised occupants of the Gram Sabha/Gram
Panchayat/poramboke/shamlat land and these must be restored to the Gram
Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the common use of villagers of the village. For this
purpose the Chief Secretaries of all State Governments/Union Territories in
India are directed to do the needful, taking the help of other senior officers of
the Governments. The said scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of
such illegal occupant, after giving him a show-cause notice and a brief hearing.
Long duration of such illegal occupation or huge expenditure in making
constructions thereon or political connections must not be treated as a
justification for condoning this illegal act or for regularising the illegal
possession. Regularisation should only be permitted in exceptional cases e.g.
where lease has been granted under some government notification to landless
labourers or members of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or where
there is already a school, dispensary or other public utility on the land."
16. From the above quoted paragraph, it would be seen that
directions were issued upon the Chief Secretaries of all State
Governments/Union Territories to prepare Schemes for eviction of
illegal/unauthorized occupants of Gram Sabha/Gram
Panchayat/poramboke/Shamlat lands and these lands were to be
restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the common use
of the villagers of the village. Even long duration of such illegal
occupation or huge expenditure in making constructions or political
connections must not be treated as a justification for condoning an
illegal act or for regularizing illegal possession. The Supreme Court
further observed the regularization of the occupation can be
permitted in exceptional cases i.e. when lease has been granted
Page No.# 9/12
under some Government notification to landless labourers or
members of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes or where there
is already a school, dispensary, or other public utility on the land.
The use of the word "regularization" at Paragraph No.23 of the
judgment in Jagpal Singh (supra) makes it very clear that it is only
where there is already a lease being granted in the case of landless
labourers or members of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes or
where there is already a school, dispensary or public utility on the
land, the steps for eviction may not be resorted. However, reading
the judgment in the case of Jagpal Singh (supra) along with Clause
6.1 of the Assam Land Policy, 2019, makes it clear that there can
be no grant of allotment in respect to Village Grazing Reserve,
Professional Grazing Reserve or reserved land.
17. This Court in the previous segments of the instant order has
clearly observed that in rural areas, the Government has the power
to grant allotment and settlement as is mandated in Clause 3 of
the Assam Land Policy, 2019. Under such circumstances, a person
who is in occupation of Government khas land has a right to claim
settlement over wastelands only inasmuch as, it is only in
Government wasteland where settlement/allotment can be
permitted.
Page No.# 10/12
18. The Petitioners herein have contended that the land under
their occupation is not Village Grazing Reserve inasmuch for being
a Village Grazing Reserve, there is a requirement of certain
notifications to be issued in that regard.
19. The above analysis therefore would show that if the lands in
question are not Village Grazing Reserve or declared as Village
Grazing Reserve as per the mandate of the law, the Petitioners
would have rights to seek allotment which would obviously have to
be done as per the policy of the Government. For the sake of
clarity, this Court finds it pertinent to observe that the right to seek
allotment/settlement is subject to satisfaction of the various
parameters as laid down or in other words, the right to seek
allotment is a right to be considered for being allotted Government
waste land.
20. Be that as it may, the Petitioners definitely have a right to
make a representation to the effect that the land in question is not
a VGR land. The Petitioners also have a right that they have filed
applications for being considered for allotment of Government
waste land and as such, they should not be evicted.
21. The Respondents have a right to evict under Rule 18 of the
Page No.# 11/12
Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue
Regulation, 1886, even from Khas Government land, apart from
VGR lands, PGR lands and reserved lands etc. But as the
Petitioners have also a right to submit a reply, as has been already
held by the learned Division Bench in the case of Md. Salak Uddin
Vs. State of Assam and Others reported in (2024) SCC OnLine Gau
921, it is the opinion of this Court that the instant writ petition is
required to be disposed of by passing certain directions.
22. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with
the following observations and directions:
(i) The Petitioners herein are given the liberty to submit a
representation to the District Commissioner, Nagaon within a
period of 20 days from the date of the present order i.e. on or
before 06.04.2026. Along with the representation, the Petitioners
would be at liberty to submit such other documentary evidences
which would show that the Petitioners have a right to settlement
for which the Petitioners should not be evicted.
(ii) The District Commissioner thereupon can either decide the
representation by himself or through the Co-District Commissioner.
(iii) The District Commissioner or the Co-District Commissioner, as
Page No.# 12/12
the case may be, shall fix a date of hearing and grant a personal
hearing to the Petitioner.
(iv) Upon hearing, the District Commissioner or the Co-District
Commissioner shall pass a Speaking Order.
(v) If the Speaking Order so passed by the District Commissioner
or the Co-District Commissioner, as the case may be, is not in
favour of the Petitioners, for a period of 15 days from the date of
notice of the Speaking Order, no steps for eviction be carried out.
(vi) It is further observed that it shall be within the jurisdiction of
the District Commissioner or the Co-District Commissioner to fix a
date for passing of the Speaking Order and if on the said date, the
Speaking Order is passed, it shall be deemed that the Petitioners
have notice of the passing of the Speaking Order.
(vii) Till the entire procedures as delineated above are followed,
status quo be maintained as regards the present possession.
Bijoy Digitally signed
by Bijoy Saha
Saha Date: 2026.03.14
17:33:42 +05'30' JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
