Page No.# 1/16 vs The State Of Assam And Ors on 13 March, 2026

Author: Devashis Baruah

Bench: Devashis Baruah

                                                             Page No.# 1/16

GAHC010004892026




                                                        2026:GAU-AS:3716

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

                            Case No. : WP(C)/222/2026


         HALAL UDDIN AND 27 ORS
         VILL- PUB LAOGAON
         P.O- LAOGAON
          P.S- SAMAGURI
          DIST- NAGAON
         ASSAM.

         2: ABDUL JALIL
         SON OF- LUKMAN ALI.
         RESIDENT OF- VILL- BARPETA
          PO- ROWMARI
          PS- RUPAHI
          DIST- NAGAON
         ASSAM

         3: HAREJ ALI
         SON OF- SAHAB UDDIN

         RESIDENT OF- VILL- BELAGURI KACHARIGAON
         P.O- RUPAHI
         DIST- NAGAON
         ASSAM

         4: SAIDUL ISLAM
         SON OF - LATE AMJAT ALI

         RESIDENT OF - VILL- LAOGAON
         P.O- SOLMARI
         DIST- NAGAON
         ASSAM

         5: JALAL UDDIN
         SON OF- ESAB ALI
                                         Page No.# 2/16

RESIDENT OF- VILL- LAOGAON
P.O- SOLMARI
DIST- NAGAON
ASSAM

6: ATAUR RAHMAN
SON OF - HASSAN ALI
RESIDENT OF- VILL- BORPETA
P.O- RAWMARI
DIST- NAGAON
ASSAM

7: MINARUL ISLAM
SON OF - MAHAR ALI
RESIDENT OF- VILL- BARPETA
PO- ROWMARI
PS- RUPAHI
DIST- NAGAON
ASSAM

8: SADDAM HUSSAIN
SON OF - MOHAR ALI
RESIDENT OF- VILL- BARPETA
PO- ROWMARI
DIST- NAGAON
ASSAM

9: MIR HUSSAIN
SON OF - NAJIR HUSSAIN
RESIDENT OF- VILL- LAOGAON
PS- RUPAHI
DIST- NAGAON
ASSAM

10: AFTAB UDDIN
SON OF - FAKAR UDDIN
RESIDENT OF- VILL- BELGURI
PS- RUPAHIHAT
DIST- NAGAON
ASSAM

11: MAINUL HAQUE
SON OF- ISMAIL ALI
RESIDENT OF VILL- BELGAON KACHARIGAON
PO- RUPAHI
DIST- NAGAON
ASSAM
                                         Page No.# 3/16

12: SALA UDDIN
SON OF- ABDUL KARIM
RESIDENT OF -VILL- LAOGAON
PO- SOLMARI
DIST- NAGAON
ASSAM.

13: ALI AJGAR
SON OF- MUJAFAR ALI
RESIDENT OF VILL- BELGURI KACHARIGAON
PO- RUPAHI
DIST- NAGAON
ASSAM

14: ROFIQUL ISLAM
SON OF- ESAB ALI
RESIDENT OF- VILL- LAOGAON
PO- ROWMARI
DIST- NAGAON
ASSAM

15: RAKYBUR ISLAM
SON OF- ROFIKUL ISLAM
RESIDENT OF - VILL- LAOGAON
PO- SOLMARI
DIST- NAGAON
ASSAM

16: FAIZUR KARIM
SON OF - IDRIS ALI
RESIDENT OF- VILL- BARPETA
PO- ROWMARI
DIST- NAGAON
ASSAM

17: ABDUL KHALIL
SON OF- ASAR ALI
VILL- BARPETA
P.O- ROWMARI
DIST- NAGAON
ASSAM.

18: MD MAINUDDIN
SON OF- MD. ABDUL KARIM
RESIDENT OF -VILL- LAWGAON
PO- SOLMARI
DIST- NAGAON
ASSAM
                                          Page No.# 4/16


19: HAITULLAH ALI
RESIDENT OF- VILL- LAOGAON
PO- SOLMARI
DIST- NAGAON
ASSAM

20: NIZBAKUR RAHMAN
SON OF- MUHAMMAD ALI
RESIDENT OF- VILL- BELGURI KACHARIGAON
PO- RUPAHI
DIST- NAGAON
ASSAM

21: FARJUL HAQUE
SON OF- RAHMAT ULLAH
VILL- LAOGAON
PO- SOLMARI
DIST- NAGAON
ASSAM.

22: RABIA BOSRI
C/O- MAINUDDIN
VILL- LAOGAON
PO- SOLMARI
DIST- NAGAON
ASSAM.

23: TAIYAB ALI
SON OF- LAL MAMUD
VILL- BELGURI KACHARIGAON
PO- RUPAHI
DIST- NAGAON
ASSAM

24: SADDAM HUSSAIN
SON OF- RAHIM UDDIN
VILL- BELGURI KACHARIGAON
PO- RUPAHI
DIST- NAGAON
ASSAM

25: JABBAR ALI
SON OF- RAJAB ALI
VILL- BELGURI KACHARI GAON
PO- RUPAHI
DIST- NAGAON
ASSAM
                                                   Page No.# 5/16


26: HABIBUR RAHMAN
SON OF- SAHAR ALI
VILL- JURIA
PO- RUPAHI
DIST- NAGAON
ASSAM

27: ABDUL MANNAN
SON OF- SAGAR ALI
VILL- LAOGAON
P.O- SOLMARI
DIST- NAGAON
ASSAM

28: MD HARAS ALI
SON OF- MD. MOHAR ALI
VILL- LAOGAON
PO- RUPAHI
DIST- NAGAON
ASSAM.
VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER SECRETARY
REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI -781006

2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
NAGAON
 DISTRICT
ASSAM- 782001

3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
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
ASSAM
------------
                                                                         Page No.# 6/16



                                   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.

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 Page No.# 7/16

the writ petition are that the Petitioners are the shop owners carrying their respective business over the land belongs to Belguri Natun Bazar, Panjagana Jame Masjid. The said Masjid situated 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.9 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. It is the case of the Petitioners that on 03.12.2025, a notice was issued by the Circle Officer, Samaguri Revenue Circle informing the Petitioner No.14 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.

5. It is the further case of the Petitioners that the Petitioners thereupon submitted a representation to the District Commissioner, Nagaon to stop the eviction inasmuch as, the market set up in the said land was done with the permission of the concerned Gaon Panchayats and an application has also been filed for allotment of Page No.# 8/16

one bigha of land. The said representation being not considered, the Petitioners have therefore approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

6. 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.

7. In the meanwhile, an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the Respondent No.2 stating inter alia that the land wherein the shops of the Petitioners were located is a VGR land. 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 Beloguri Natun Bazar Panjagana Masjid and Beloguri Natun Bazar are located on VGR land. The said affidavit-in-opposition was filed on 06.02.2026.

8. This Court has given an anxious consideration to their respective pleadings and also heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.

Page No.# 9/16

9. 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 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.

10. 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 is a land which is yet to be allotted to the Petitioners. The land in question admittedly is a Government land.

11. 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 Page No.# 10/16

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 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."

12. 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.

13. 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 Page No.# 11/16

Governments in the country that they should prepare schemes for eviction of 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."

14. 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 Page No.# 12/16

permitted in exceptional cases i.e. when 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. 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.

15. It is the case of the Petitioners that they have jointly requested for allotment of the land under their occupation for carrying out their business. The allotment sought for the market area is 1 Bigha. It is the opinion of this Court that if the land under the occupation of the Petitioners are Government waste land, they have a right to seek allotment subject to the policy of the Government as well as the provisions of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 and the Rules framed therein under Page No.# 13/16

permitting so. However, this Court finds it relevant to observe and clarify that under no circumstances, the petitioners would have a right for allotment in respect to VGR, PGR or reserved land as the same would be against the land policies of Assam declared in the year 1989 as well as 2019. (See Clause 6.1 of both the Land Policy, 1989 and Land Policy, 2019). Additionally, it would be in the teeth of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Singh (supra).

16. The above analysis therefore would show that if the lands in question are not Village Grazing Reserve, the Petitioners then only can 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.

17. 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 of being given a hearing that they have filed an application for being considered for Page No.# 14/16

allotment of Government waste land and as such, they should not be evicted.

18. The Respondents have a right to evict under Rule 18 of the 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.

19. 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 said representations, the Petitioners would be at liberty to submit such other documentary evidences which would show that the Petitioners have a right to be allotted the land as sought for the market in question.

Page No.# 15/16

(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 the case may be, shall fix a date of hearing and grant a personal hearing to the representative of the Petitioners as well as the Petitioners herein have joined together to response a common cause.

(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 complied Page No.# 16/16

with, status quo be maintained as regards the present possession.

Bijoy             Digitally signed by
                  Bijoy Saha                                  JUDGE

Saha              Date: 2026.03.14
                  17:29:09 +05'30'
Comparing Assistant