Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010205232025 2025:GAU-AS:13264-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/290/2025 1: ABDUL GOFUR S/O FAIAJ ALI, VILL- MAHADEBPUR PART-III, P.O.- JABALPUR, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-788816 2: ABDUL MALIK BARBHUIYA S/O YEASIN ALI BARBHUIYA VILL- MAHADEBPUR PART-III P.O.- JABALPUR DIST- CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788816 3: NURUN NESSA CHOUDHURY W/O LATE ATAUR RAHMAN CHOUHDURY VILL- MAHADEBPUR PART-III P.O.- JABALPUR DIST- CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788816 4: SAYNA BEGUM CHOUDHURY D/O LATE ATAUR RAHMAN CHOUDHURY VILL- MAHADEBPUR PART-III P.O.- JABALPUR DIST- CACHAR ASSAM PIN-78881 VERSUS 1: THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, ASSAM, GUWHATI-6 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CACHAR DIST- CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788001 3:THE ASSTT. SETTLEMENT OFFICER KATIGORAH REVENUE CIRCLE DIST- CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788805 4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER KATIGORAH REVENUE CIRCLE DIST- KATIGORAH ASSAM PIN-788805 5:MAFTAB UDDIN BARBHUIYA S/O LATE MUJJAMIL ALI BARBHUIYA VILL- PAIKAN P.O.- GUMRA BAZAR DIST- CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788815 Page No.# 2/4 6:JAMAL UDDIN BARBHUIYA S/O LATE MUFASIL ALI BARBHUIYA VILL- SARASPUR P.O.- PAIKAN DIST- CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788815 7:SRI SRI RADHAMADHAB BIGRAHA, BEING JURISTIC DEITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SHEVBAIT (MANAGER) SILCHAR-14 BILPAR KANAKPUR CACHAR ASSAM PIN-78800 For the Appellant(s) : Mr. S.B. Laskar, Advocate. Mr. H.A. Laskar, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Ms. S. Sarma, Junior Govt. Advocate, Assam. : Mr. R. Borpujari, Standing Counsel, Revenue Department. – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 25.09.2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. S.B. Laskar, learned Advocate for the appellants; Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for the respondent Nos.1 & 3 and Mrs. S. Sarma, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent Nos.2 & 4. The appellants were served with eviction notice, asking them to vacate their place of residence within 7(seven) days, holding them to be encroachers of religious and charitable land. This notice was challenged by the appellants before the learned Single Judge on the ground that the land was owned by Radhamadhav Bigraha, a deity, since time immemorial. Sometimes in the year 1934, the Shebait of the deity permanently settled the land in favour of the predecessors of private respondent Nos.5 & 6, subject to payment of land revenue. It appears that the appellants are tenants of respondent Nos.5 & 6 and are in continuous and peaceful possession of the land and had been paying rent Page No.# 3/4 through the private respondents and before them, through their ancestors. The eviction notice has been issued to them ostensibly under the provisions contained in 10.2 of the Assam Land Policy, 2019 vesting power in the Deputy Commissioners to put in the best efforts to preserve and protect the land belonging to Satras and other such religious and charitable institutions and remove all unauthorized encroachment from such land forthwith. The further case of the appellants before the learned Single Judge was that the land had not been acquired and, therefore, the appellants could not have been treated as encroachers of the land. That apart, it was prayed by the appellants that they ought to have been given a reasonable opportunity to put forth their case and explain their bona fides. The apprehension looms large on the appellants of being evicted forcefully as only 7(seven) days’ notice was given to them to remove their belongings from a place where they had been residing for the last several years. The learned Single Judge, after having heard the matter, issued notice to the respondents but refused to stay the follow up action pursuant to the notice. Hence, this appeal. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that they were only demanding some more time for them to explain their cause and the justification of residing in the houses constructed on the land which belongs to Radhamadhav Bigraha and was settled by the Shebait in favour of the ancestors of the respondent Nos.5 & 6 sometimes in the year 1934. The refusal by the learned Single Judge in granting stay of further follow up action of the notice, the appellants claim, has resulted in serious apprehension of the appellants of their forceful eviction. Page No.# 4/4 In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to stay the eviction of the appellants till the time the writ petition [WP(C) No.5093/2025] before the learned Single Judge is decided finally. The learned Single Judge is requested to decide the issue and dispose off the writ petition as expeditiously as possible. With the above observation and direction, the writ appeal stands disposed off. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant