Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010192432022 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6171/2022 MOMTAJ BEGUM WIFE OF LATE MONI AHMED, VILL- TINIALI GAON, P.O.- TINIALI BAZAR, P.S.- LANKA, DISTRICT- HOJAI, PIN- 782446. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006. 2:THE HOJAI ZILLA PARISHAD HOJAI REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 3:THE PRESIDENT UDALI ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT BAMUNGAON LANKA HOJAI. 4:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER UDALI ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT BAMUNGAON LANKA HOJAI. 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER Page No.# 2/5 HOJAI Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K BARUAH, MR A DAS Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P AND R.D., GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER Date : 16.09.2026 Heard Mr. A. K. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, P&RD, for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4, and Ms. M. Barman, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 5. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the impugned notice dated 17.08.2022 issued by the respondent Nos. 3 & 4, whereby the settlement of Bheti granted to the petitioner at Udali Tiniali Bazar by the Udali Anchalik Panchayat has been cancelled on the alleged violation of rules and regulations of the Anchalik Panchayat, and directed to vacate the Bheti in question within 10 days thereof. 3. Mr. A. K. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though a show cause notice was issued on 05.03.2022 asking the petitioner to show cause as to why the petitioner’s settlement should not be set aside and the petitioner had submitted a reply on 14.03.2022 to the said show cause notice, and thereupon the impugned notice was issued on 17.08.2022 thereby cancelling the settlement but a perusal of the show cause notice dated 05.03.2022 as well as the impugned notice dated 17.08.2022 Page No.# 3/5 would show that neither the show cause notice dated 05.03.2022 nor the impugned notice dated 17.08.2022 provides reasons or even the grounds on which the respondent authority had cancelled the petitioner’s settlement. 4. Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 submits that in the reply to the show cause notice dated 05.03.2022, the petitioner never raised the issue that he could not understand the content of the show cause notice and therefore the petitioner cannot now take that plea. 5. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, it is seen that the show cause notice dated 05.03.2022 alleges violation of the terms and conditions of the settlement issued by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, but does not specify the particular condition alleged to have been violated. 6. Likewise, in the impugned order dated 17.08.2022, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have not specified the particular violation committed by the petitioner. 7. In an identical factual situation, this Court, in Abdul Hai v. The State of Assam and Ors., in WP(C) No. 6250/2022, upon finding the show cause notice to be vague and the consequential action to have been taken on the basis thereof, set aside the show cause notice as well as the consequential cancellation order, while reserving liberty to the respondent authorities to initiate fresh proceedings by specifying the particular terms and conditions of the settlement alleged to have been violated. The relevant observations of the Court are extracted below: “5. This Court has given an anxious consideration to the respective submissions and has also perused the Show Cause Notice dated Page No.# 4/5 05.03.2022, the reply submitted by the Petitioner on 15.03.2022 as well as the impugned notice dated 17.08.2022. 6. From a perusal of the Show Cause Notice dated 05.03.2022, it is seen that there is an allegation that the Petitioner had violated the terms and conditions of the settlement issued by the Respondent Nos.3 and 4. There is no specific mention as to what is the violation. 7. It is further seen that in the impugned notice dated 17.08.2022, the Respondent No.3 and 4 have also not specified what is the violation which the Petitioner had committed. It is the opinion of this Court that if the Show Cause Notice is vague and a further action is taken on such vague Show Cause Notice, it violates the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the noticee is not in a position to answer to the allegations made in the Show Cause Notice. 8. It is also the opinion of this Court that when the settlement has been granted in favour of the Petitioner, the settlement can be cancelled by the Respondent Authorities on violation of the terms and conditions of the settlement. However, when such an order is being passed, it has to contain reasons as to what is the violation the Petitioner had committed. In absence of providing the details of the violations committed by the Petitioner, it renders such action of cancellation violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 9. Accordingly, this Court therefore disposes of the instant writ petition with the following observations and directions: (i) The impugned Show Cause Notice dated 05.03.2022 as well as the impugned order dated 17.08.2022 being vague are in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and accordingly both are set aside and quashed. (ii) The setting aside and quashing of the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 05.03.2022 as well as the subsequent impugned order dated 17.08.2022 shall not bar the Respondent Authorities to initiate fresh steps for cancellation of the settlement by providing the violations of the terms and conditions of the settlement.” 8. In the present case also, there is no reference to any specific term or condition of the settlement which the petitioner is alleged to have violated. The show cause notice, therefore, suffers from vagueness, and the Page No.# 5/5 consequential cancellation order passed on the basis thereof cannot be sustained, having regard to the principles of natural justice. 9. This Court is, accordingly, in respectful agreement with the view taken by the coordinate Bench in Abdul Hai (supra). The present writ petition is, therefore, disposed of in similar terms, with the following directions: (i) The impugned show cause notice dated 05.03.2022 and the consequential order dated 17.08.2022, being vague and violative of the principles of natural justice, are hereby set aside and quashed. (ii) The setting aside and quashing of the aforesaid show cause notice and consequential order shall not preclude the respondent authorities from initiating fresh proceedings for cancellation of the settlement, if otherwise permissible in law, by specifically identifying the terms and conditions of the settlement alleged to have been violated and providing the petitioner an adequate opportunity to respond thereto. JUDGE Comparing Assistant