Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010097862023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2520/2023 BHAGWATI DEVI W/O- LATE SHIV DAYAL SAH, R/O- SARAB BHATI, DR. B.K. KAKOTI ROAD, P.S.- PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI, DIST.- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY T THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, ASSAM SECRETARIAT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN- 781006. 2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM ASSAM SECRETARIAT DISPUR GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 781006. 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KAMRUP(M) DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM. 4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER Page No.# 2/4 GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE GUWAHATI DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM. 5:THE COMMISSIONER GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S BORTHAKUR, MR. D GOGOI,MR. M K DEURI Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE, SC, GMC,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 12.03.2026 Heard Shri D. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri N. Goswami, learned State Counsel; Ms. N. Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department and Shri S. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, GMC. 2. As per the facts projected, the petitioner is in possession of a plot of land measuring 1 Katha 5 Lechas covered by Dag No. 1084 at Ulubari Gaon Revenue village under Guwahati Revenue Circle. It is contended that the land was purchased by executing a Sale Deed in the year 1980. It is also contended that being in possession for more than 10 years, the petitioner had applied for settlement. However, on 20.09.2004, the respondent authorities had come to the premises and demolished the construction. The aforesaid action was the subject matter of challenge in a writ petition being WP(C)/8034/2004 wherein an order was passed on 07.11.2012 directing the Deputy Commissioner to Page No.# 3/4 consider the application for settlement of land with the petitioner and till such consideration has made, she should not be evicted from the land in question. However, it is the case of the petitioner that without complying with the aforesaid direction, on 29.04.2023, some part of the house of the petitioner was demolished. Accordingly, the second writ petition has been filed. 3. Shri Gogoi, the learned counsel has submitted that the impugned action is in gross violation of law and also the principles of natural justice. He has also alleged that the earlier order of this Court dated 07.11.2012 has been violated. 4. Shri Goswami, the learned State Counsel, on the other hand, by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition dated 21.01.2025 filed by the respondent no. 3 has submitted that the eviction process has already been carried out as the land in question is a part of the cremation ground as well as “Gau Reserved (VGR)”. It is submitted that the petitioner was an illegal occupation and the eviction has accordingly been carried out by following the due process of law. He has also submitted that the application for settlement of land has also been rejected as the land in question is a part of the Gau-Reserved (VGR) Land. 5. Both Ms. Bordoloi, the learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department and Shri Bora, the learned Standing Counsel, GMC have endorsed the submissions advanced by Shri Goswami, the learned State Counsel. 6. Shri Gogoi, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the aforesaid development, there may be a fresh cause of action which the petitioner may challenge, if so advised. He however contends that the eviction has not been carried out completely and some part of the land is still in possession of the petitioner. 7. In view of the aforesaid situation, while this Court is of the opinion that no Page No.# 4/4 relief, as such can be granted to the petitioner in this case, liberty is granted to the petitioner to challenge the consequential action before the appropriate forum. It is also provided that if any part of the land is still under the possession of the petitioner which according to the State respondents are reserved land which are to be made encroachment free, the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of Md. Salak Uddin Vs. State of Assam reported in 2024 (4) GLT 857 interpreting the Rule 18 of the Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 be meticulously followed in carrying out any eviction process. 8. Writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant