Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010102022024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2694/2024 NURUL ISLAM S/O- ELAHI BOXO, VILLAGE- MANASPARA, P.O. AND P.S. LAKHIPUR, DIST.- GOALPARA (ASSAM), PIN- 783129 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF ASSAM, SECRETARIAT CIVIL, F BLOCK, 1ST FLOOR, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER GOALPARA DISTRICT- GOALPARA ASSAM PIN- 783121 3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER OF LAKHIPUR REVENUE CIRCLE P.O. AND P.S. LAKHIPUR DIST.- GOALPARA ASSAM PIN- 783129 4:THE LAKHIPUR MUNICIPAL BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN P.O. AND P.S. LAKHIPUR DIST.- GOALPARA ASSAM PIN- 783129 5:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER LAKHIPUR MUNICIPAL BOARD P.O. AND P.S. LAKHIPUR DIST.- GOALPARA Page No.# 2/9 ASSAM PIN- 78312 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Advocate for the Petitioner(s) : Mr. M. I. Hussain, Advocate Advocate for the Respondent(s) : Ms. G. Hazarika, SC, Revenue Mr. H. Sarmah, Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate Mr. D. Nath, Sr. Advocate Date on which judgment is reserved : NA Date of pronouncement of judgment : 08.09.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment? : Yes Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced? : No JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. M. I. Hussain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Ms. G. Hazarika, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent No.1; Mr. H. Sarmah, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 and Mr. D. Nath, the learned Senior Counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos.4 & 5. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the notice dated 16.05.2024 issued by the Respondent No.5 whereby the Petitioner along with two others Page No.# 3/9 was directed to remove the shop/godown etc., within two days otherwise it was threatened that the shop/godown of the Petitioner would be demolished by the Respondent No.4 without any prior information to the Petitioner. 3. The case of the Petitioner in brief is that he is the original resident of village Gerapuri, Fetengapara in the district of Goalpara, Assam. Upon his house being eroded by the river Brahmaputra around two decades ago, he shifted to village Manaspara Reserve wherein the Petitioner claimed that he had purchased a plot of land admeasuring 1 katha 15 lechas covered by Dag No.287/2 from one Amiruddin on 15.10.2011 at the village Manaspara Reserve. The Sale Deed has been enclosed to the writ petition and from a perusal of the said document, it appears that the said document is an unregistered Sale Deed. The Petitioner has also enclosed the revenue-paying receipts and Chitha copy and from a perusal of the revenue receipts, it is seen that the land in question is a Government land. A further perusal of the Chitha which has been enclosed as Annexure-3 wherein in the Remarks Column, the name of the Petitioner has been mentioned as a possessor of a plot of land admeasuring 4 kathas 5 lechas. 4. It is the specific case of the Petitioner that the Lakhipur Municipal Board, i.e. the respondent No. 4 has no authority or Page No.# 4/9 jurisdiction to issue the said impugned notice dated 16.05.2024 in as much as the jurisdiction of the Lakhipur Municipal Board does not extent to village Manaspara Reserve. 5. It is the specific case of the Petitioner that the village Manaspara Reserve is demarcated by a PWD road known as the Lakhipur-Jaleswar Road. Though the village Manaspara falls under the Lakhipur Municipal Board, but the village Manaspara Reserve which is on the northern side of the Lakhipur-Jaleswar Road is not within the jurisdiction of the Lakhipur Municipal Board. Under such circumstances, the Petitioner approached this Court challenging the notice dated 16.05.2024 by filing the writ petition on 21.05.2024. 6. The learned Coordinate Bench of this Court while issuing notice stayed the impugned notice dated 16.05.2024 in so far as the Petitioner is concerned. 7. The record reveals that the Lakhipur Municipal Board filed an affidavit-in-opposition pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 08.04.2026. A perusal of the said affidavit-in-opposition would show that the Government of Assam Municipal Administration Department by the Notification dated 18.09.1971 issued under Section 334(1) of the Assam Municipal Act 1956 (for short, the Act of 1956’) constituted the Lakhipur Town Page No.# 5/9 Committee in the Goalpara district with specific boundaries given in Schedule-1. It was stated that the Town Committee was divided into four Wards as per Schedule-2 of the said Notification. Subsequently, on the basis of another Notification issued under Section 4 of the Assam Municipal (Amendment) Act, 2017, the existing Lakhipur Town Committee was converted into Lakhipur Municipal Board. It was contended in the said affidavit that the Foliamari Bazar has been running under the Lakhipur Municipal Board (earlier Lakhipur Town Committee) since 1993 till the date and prior to the allotment of the Foliamari market land to the Board, the land was recorded as the Government Khas land. 8. It was further mentioned that the said market is duly recognized as a municipal market comprising of shops, sheds and like structures, which have been functioning under the administrative control of the Lakhipur Municipal Board and the market is run by engaging lessees on a yearly basis. It was further mentioned that the land covered by Dag No.287 measuring 2 bighas 4 kathas 15 lechas where Foliamari Market is continuing forms part of the Manaspara Reserve village and it is situated at the border of the Lakhipur Municipal Board's area. It was stated that the Petitioner is occupying a portion of the land within the Folimari Daily Bazar by erecting a temporary structure Page No.# 6/9 without any lawful allotment of its settlement, and it is under such circumstances, the notice dated 16.05.2024 was issued to the Petitioner and two other persons to vacate the premises. 9. An affidavit-in-reply was filed by the Petitioner reiterating and reaffirming the statements made in the writ petition. It was categorically mentioned that the village Manaspara Reserve does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Lakhipur Municipal Board. It was also mentioned that the Folimari Market so settled by the Respondent No.4 is not in the area of village Manaspara Reserve. Photographs in that regard have been also enclosed to the writ petition. 10. When the writ petition was taken up on 27.07.2026, this Court directed Mr. H. Sarmah, the learned Government Advocate to obtain instructions whether the land under the occupation of the Petitioner falls under the Lakhipur Municipal Board and further as to whether any steps for eviction against the Petitioner has been taken more particularly in view of the fact that the land was reserved for the Lakhipur Municipal Board as contended by the Respondent Board. An instruction was placed before this Court dated 11.08.2026 which was kept on record and marked with the letter “X” vide the order dated 17.08.2026. The contents of the said instruction issued by the Circle Officer, Lakhipur Revenue Circle being relevant is reproduced herein under:- Page No.# 7/9 “GOVT OF ASSAM OFFICE OF THE CIRCLE OFFICER, LAKHIPUR REVENUE CIRCLE, LAKHIPUR DISTRICT ::: GOALPARA ________________________________________________________________________ No. GLCG.07/2024/HC/CI/3097 Dated, August, 11th, 2026. To, Shri Hrishikesh Sarma, Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam, Gauhati High Court, Guwahati-01, Ph. No. 80117-28927/98640-34928, Email id: adv.hrishikesh.sarma@gmail.com Sub: Instruction in respect of the WP(C)/2694/2024 (Nurul Islam - Vs - the State of Assam & 4 ORS) Ref.: Your letter No. ASGA/HS/2026/7414, dated 03/08/2026 Sir, With reference to the subject cited above, I hereby submit the following for your kind perusal and necessary action: That- 1. after verification of office record it is found that Dag No. 287, measuring land area 600B-4K-9L falling under Manaspara PVGR Reserve under Lakhipur Revenue Circle, Goalpara, is a Govt. land categorized as 'shreni naai' type, and the Petitioner is one of the possessors of the said land, not an owner as mentioned in the Plaint. It is noted that there is a Dag no. 287/2 in the Old Chitha (prepared in 1984) wherein it is recorded as Govt. land, categorized as 'shreni naai' type and neither petitioner's nor his father's name could be found recorded; 2. after field verification, it has been evident that the land in question (indeed, a shop structure) as referred in the Plaint for which, as claimed, eviction notice was served by Lakhipur Municipality Board, falls within Dag no 294 (measuring 3B-0K-17L) which is recorded as Govt. land and the recorded possessor is Folimari High School; it does not fall in Dag no 287/2. It is noteworthy that the Page No.# 8/9 land does not fall within the said Municipality jurisdiction (Indeed, none of the dag mentioned in this letter i.e., 287, 287/2 and 294 does not fall in the Municipality area). 3. office of the undersigned has neither taken any step for eviction of the land nor it is in any knowledge of serving any eviction notice by the Lakhipur Municipality Board, to the Petitioner. The above facts may be treated as instruction for further proceedings. Yours faithfully, Circle Officer Lakhipur Revenue Circle, Lakhipur Encl: Chitha copy of Dag nos. 287, 287/2, 294” 11. From a perusal of the above quoted instructions, it appears that Dag No.287 admeasuring 600 bighas 4 kathas 9 lechas falling under Manaspara PVGR Reserve under Lakhipur Revenue Circle, Goalpara is a Government land categorized as “shreni naai type” and the Petitioner is one of the possessor of the said land and not the owner. 12. It is also mentioned that there is Dag No.287/2 in the old Chitha prepared in the year 1984 wherein it is recorded that the Government land is categorized as “shreni naai type” and neither the Petitioner nor his father's name could be found recorded. Further, upon field verification, it was evident that the land in question falls under Dag No.294 which is recorded as Government land and the recorded possessor is Folimari High Page No.# 9/9 School. It was categorically mentioned that the Lakhipur Municipal Board's jurisdiction does not fall in Dag Nos.287, 287/2 and 294. 13. From the contents of the said instructions, it is therefore clear that though the Petitioner claims to be in possession of Dag No.287, but the Petitioner actually is in possession of Dag No.294 which are both Government lands. The Lakhipur Municipal Board's jurisdiction does not extend to Dag Nos.287, 287/2 as well as Dag No.294. Under such circumstances, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the impugned notice dated 16.05.2024 issued by the Respondent No.5 was beyond the jurisdiction of the Respondent No.5, and accordingly, the said impugned notice is required to be interfered with. 14. Accordingly, the instant writ petition therefore stands disposed of with the following observations and directions:- (i) The impugned notice dated 16.05.2024 issued by the Respondent No.5 is set aside and quashed. (ii) There shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Pradip Kumar Kalita Digitally signed by Pradip Kumar Kalita Date: 2026.09.11 11:00:34 +05'30'