Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010200172025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5185/2025 BIDYA PRASAD CHAUHAN @ BIDYA PROSAD CHOHAN S/O LATE RAMESH CHAUHAN @ RAMESH CHOHAN, R/O BAKALIAGHAT, SIKARI PATHAR, WARD NO. 1, P.O. AND P.S.- BAKALIAGHAT, PIN-782482, DIST- KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006, ASSAM 2:THE KARBI ANGLONG AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL DIPHU PIN-782460 DIST- KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE MEMBER 3:THE BAKALIA MUNICIPAL BOARD BAKALIA-782482 DIST- KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN 4:THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER KARBI ANGLONG AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL PHULONI REVENUE CIRCLE PHULONI DIST- KARBI ANGLONG ASSA Page No.# 2/3 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M SARMA, S CHAUHAN,MS Z RASHUL Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE, SC, K A A C BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 04.09.2025 Heard Shri M. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri J. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, KAAC and Ms. N. Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department. Considering the subject matter involved and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage. Bereft of details, the facts projected is that the petitioner is residing over a plot of land with his family for more than 5 decades. The said plot of land is measuring 3 kathas, 10 lessas covered by Dag No. 312/278 (N) at Bakaliaghat in the district of Karbi Anglong and in course of time, Periodic Khiraj Patta No. 145 was also issued to the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is against a notice dated 25.08.2025 issued by the Assistant Revenue Officer, Phuloni Revenue Circle on the subject of eviction. Shri Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though in the notice, the Dag No. has been stated to be 709, since the same has been served upon his client, there is an apprehension that his client may also be a part of the eviction process. Shri Chutia, the learned Standing Counsel, KAAC has however submitted that the firstly, the notice was not issued to the petitioner and is a general notice. Page No.# 3/3 Secondly, the description of the land which is under encroachment had been clearly stated to be under Dag No. 709 whereas the plot of land of the petitioner is of a different Dag. He accordingly submits that the apprehension is without any basis. Ms. Bordoloi, the learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department has endorsed the submission of the learned Standing Counsel, KAAC. On a perusal of the testimonials of the petitioner including the Periodic Khiraj Patta No. 145, it is seen that the plot of land of the petitioner is covered by Dag No. 312/278 (N) where the description of the land in the impugned notice is with regard to Dag No. 709. Shri Sarma, the learned counsel has explained that though the name of the petitioner is not given in the notice, since the notice has been served upon him, the apprehension has arisen. In the considered opinion of this Court, the mere fact of service of notice upon the petitioner wherein his name is not appearing would not be a reason for his eviction, more so, when the description of the land under encroachment in the notice is covered by Dag No. 709 which is a separate plot of land. Shri Chutia, the learned Standing Counsel has also submitted that the eviction proceeding would be restricted to the area of land mentioned in the notice. In view of the above discussions and the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that while there will be no restriction to go ahead with the eviction notice dated 25.08.2025 in accordance with law, the same has to be confined only to the land mentioned in the said notice. Writ petition accordingly stands allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant