Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010089872020 2025:GAU-AS:3204 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2792/2020 JASHODA KUMARI AND 3 ORS. W/O- LT. BIREN CHANDRA KUMAR, R/O- VILL- SARUMATARIA, P.O. AND P.S.- DISPUR, GHY-06, DIST.- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM 2: JURI KUMARI D/O- LT. BIREN CHANDRA KUMAR R/O- VILL- SARUMATARIA P.O. AND P.S.- DISPUR GHY-06 DIST.- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 3: MINI KUMARI D/O- LT. BIREN CHANDRA KUMAR R/O- VILL- SARUMATARIA P.O. AND P.S.- DISPUR GHY-06 DIST.- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 4: MANTU KUMAR S/O- LT. BIREN CHANDRA KUMAR R/O- VILL- SARUMATARIA P.O. AND P.S.- DISPUR GHY-06 DIST.- KAMRUP (M) ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-6, ASSAM Page No.# 2/5 2:THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-6 3:THE DY. COMMISSIONER KAMRUP (M) DIST.- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 4:THE ADDL. DY. COMMISSIONER (REVENUE) KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 5:THE CIRCLE OFFICER DISPUR REVENUE CIRCLE KAMRUP (M) ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R K BORAH, MS M S CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE, SC, GAD,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 24.03.2025 1. None appears for the petitioners on call. None did represent the petitioners when the matter was listed on 02.12.2024. 2. The petitioners’ case, in brief is that they are in occupation of a plot of sarkari land since past several years wherein, they are living by constructing residential house. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had also filed an application for settlement of the land and on the basis of such application, the Land Advisory Committee had also made a recommendation in their favour on 17.01.2006. It is their grievance that notwithstanding the same, no formal order of settlement has Page No.# 3/5 been issued in favour of the petitioners till date and on the other hand, the petitioners are verbally asked to vacate the land, claiming the same to be government land. 3. This Court under its order dated 17.08.2020, considering the nature of grievance, granted an order of status quo as an ad-interim measure as regards the possession of land. 4. When the matter was listed on 17.08.2020, the respondent State had taken a stand that the petitioners are possessing government land. 5. Admittedly the petitioners are possessing government land. However, it is their claim that their applications for settlement over the land is pending and they are asked to vacate the land verbally and without issuing any notice 6. A Division Bench of this court in WP(C) 1057/2022 (Md. Salak Uddin Vs. State of Assam and 2 Ors.), while dealing with a reference as to whether a notice is required to be issued under Section 18(2) of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 has made certain conclusion. Since such conclusions are having importance and determinative factor in adjudication of an eviction process, the same are curved out in the following manner: I. Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules clearly shows that Deputy Commissioner or such authority duly empowered under Rule 3 of the Settlement Rule has to arrive at a subjective satisfaction that there is no bona-fide claim of right. II. Revenue authorities cannot be permitted to unilaterally decide as to whether an occupier/ possessor has a bona-fide claim of right involved inasmuch as it would require adjudication of both law and facts and without providing an opportunity to the Page No.# 4/5 occupier / possessor, such decision would be in violation of the principle of natural justice which in turn would violate Article 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution. III. Though Rule 18 (2) is silent on the question of issuance of the notice, but use of the word ‘forthwith’ does not necessarily and absolutely exclude the prior application of audi alteram partem Rule inasmuch as immediacy or urgency requiring swift action is a situational fact, having a direct nexus with the likelihood of adverse affect. IV. Bona-fide claim, in case of Government khas land or waste land, may involve a bona-fide claim of right to claim settlement over the land on the basis of settlement Rules and extant land policy of the Government of Assam. In respect of other lands i.e. lands previously reserved for roads or roadside lands, or for grazing of village cattle or for other public purposes or the occupant had entered into possession of land from which he has been excluded by general or special order, such lands are outside the purview of settlement, there may be various situations, where the question of disputes pertaining to the boundary or there may be disputes pertaining to reservations or de-reservation for grazing of village cattle or for that matter, there may be a dispute that the persons who have been granted the settlement in respect of a land even prior to being previously reserved for the purpose, may arise. V. Under such circumstances, issuance of a notice shall be necessary to form a subjective satisfaction, which is in consonance with the principles of natural justice inasmuch as same will facilitate a just, fair and transparent procedure, which Page No.# 5/5 are facets of Article 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution. 7. Considering the matter in entirety and taking note of the facts pleaded that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners filed an application for settlement and that the eviction is sought to be carried out without any notice, it is provided that the concerned official shall be at liberty, if the State so desire to proceed against the petitioners, however, such action can be done in terms of the determination made in Md. Salak Uddin (supra) more particularly, by issuing a notice and giving them a reasonable opportunity of hearing, if the petitioners are not already settled with the land in question. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. 9. Interim status quo order shall continue till such determination is made. JUDGE Comparing Assistant