Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010101432024 2025:GAU-AS:6922 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2712/2024 CHANDRABHAN NESSA W/O- MD. AMZAD ALI @ AMZAD HUSSAIN, D/O- MOKROM ALI, R/O- ANANDA NAGAR, WARD NO. 14, BILASIPARA TOWN ( KRISHNA NAGAR), P.O. AND P.S. BILASIPARA, DIST.- DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN- 783348 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR GHY-6 3:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM REVENUE AND D.M (S) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GHY-06 4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DHUBRI ASSAM P.O. AND P.S. AND DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783301 5:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER (CIVIL) BILASIPARA CUM THE CHAIRMAN OF SUB-DIVISIONAL LEVEL LAND ADVISORY COMMITTEE (SDLAC) BILASIPARA Page No.# 2/4 P.O. AND P.S. BILASIPARA DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783348 6:THE ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT OFFICER CUM CIRCLE OFFICER BILASIPARA REVENUE CIRCLE BILASIPARA P.O. AN DP.S. BILASIPARA DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 78334 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M HUSSAIN, MR. R I MONDAL Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, REVENUE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 28.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. M Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M Barman, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1, 4, 5 & 6 and Ms. G Hazarika, learned standing counsel, Revenue & Disaster Management Department, appearing for respondent Nos.2 & 3. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is non-consideration of the settlement proposal of the petitioner, which, according to the petitioner, was forwarded by the Circle Officer, Bilasipara Revenue Circle to the Sub-Divisional Level Advisory Committee (SDLAC), Bilasipara. However, the same is not yet considered till date. 3. The state respondents has, by filing affidavit admitted the position that on 23.12.2012, the petitioner submitted prescribed Page No.# 3/4 application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bilasipara, with a prayer to allot and settle the plot of land measuring 2 kathas 5 lechas covered by Dag no.770 of village Ananda Nagar (Town) under Bilasipara Revenue Circle in her name. 4. The Circle Officer, Bilasipara on 13.02.2020 submitted the settlement proposal to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), for settlement of land and it is their stand that the petitioner has been possessing the proposed land since 2008 and in terms of Clause 14.4 of Land Policy, 2019, indigenous landless persons are eligible for settlement of land who have been under continuous occupation of Govt. land since or prior to 28th June, 2001 and accordingly, it is their stand that the petitioner is not entitled for such settlement. 5. Another affidavit is filed by the respondent No.6 with a stand that the husband of the petitioner is a Government Employee under Assam Police Department, however, the petitioner has submitted a petition before the Circle Officer, Bilasipara Revenue Circle with a declaration that the petitioner has been living separately from her husband since long and therefore, she is eligible for allotment of land. 6. In view of the aforesaid stand, this court is of the opinion that the Revenue authorities/the competent authorities are duty bound to take a decision in this regard, as to whether the petitioner is entitled for any settlement in terms of the extent land policy. 7. But, it is unfortunate that these Officers are having enough time to file detailed affidavit before this court, however, they Page No.# 4/4 are not having time to pass an order rejecting or accepting the claim of the petitioner and thus, compelled a citizen to come before this court with a grievance that the application is being kept pending. 8. Be that as it may, the present writ petition stands disposed of by directing the competent authorities who can decide on the application of the petitioner for settlement of land within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 9. This court has not decided the matter on merit, inasmuch as it is the bounden duty upon the aforesaid authorities to take a call on the application filed by the petitioner, inasmuch as such disputed question of fact, whether the petitioner is a divorcee or whether she is entitled for any land or whether her case comes within the ambit of the land policy, cannot be decided by this court and the land policy of the state itself prescribes a procedure for such determination and the authority to decide such claim. 10. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of. 11. It is needless to say that the order passed today, shall not be treated as comment on the merit on the claim of either of the petitioner or the respondent state. JUDGE Comparing Assistant