Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010206842025 2025:GAU-AS:12300 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5368/2025 FAJAR ALI AND ANR S/O LATE TAYAB ALI, R/O VILL- 3 NO. GOTAIMARI, MOUZA- SILABANDHA, P.O.- NANDIKESWAR, P.S.- JAMUGURI, DIST- SONITPUR, ASSAM 2: FULJAN NESSA W/O LATE TAYAB ALI R/O VILL- 3 NO. GOTAIMARI MOUZA- SILABANDHA P.O.- NANDIKESWAR P.S.- JAMUGURI DIST- SONITPUR ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM REVENUE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER SONITPUR TEZPUR P.O. AND P.S.- TEZPUR DIST- SONITPUR ASSAM PIN-784001 Page No.# 2/6 4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER NADUAR REVENUE CIRCLE SOOTEA DIST- SONITPUR ASSAM PIN-78417 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R BHUYAN, MD. I HUSSAIN,MS. M MEDHI Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, REVENUE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 10.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. N Das, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and Ms. P.R. Mahanta, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4. 2. The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition with a grievance that the petitioners are in possession of their plots of lands i.e., land measuring (i) 3 bigha covered by Dag No.57, Patta No.4; (ii) 5 bigha 2 katha, 2 lessa covered by Dag No.56 and (iii) 1 bigha, 2 katha 18 lessa covered by dag No.51, Patta No.4, (iv) 4 bigha covered by dag No.54 and (v) 1 bigha out of 2 bigha covered by Dag No.59 of revenue village Gotaimari, Mouza Silabandha, district Sonitpur and are in continuous possession for eight decades. 3. The name of father/husband of the petitioners namely, Tayab Ali is duly recorded in the NRC and in the voters list along with the petitioner No.1. With regard to the land measuring 5 bigha 2 Page No.# 3/6 katha, 2 lessa covered by Dag No.56 and land measuring 1 bigha, 2 katha 18 lessa covered by dag No.51, the name of the petitioner No.1 has been mutated in place of Late Tayab Ali by way of inheritance vide order dated 03.01.2022 and same has been reflected in the Jamabandi for the surveyed village. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent authorities had sought to evict the petitioners from their patta lands by issuing an eviction notice dated 27.08.2025 stating that the petitioners will be evicted from their patta lands by 11.09.2025. 5. It is the contention of the petitioners that they are in continuous possession of the aforesaid land since pre-independence and they have been regularly paying land revenue pertaining to those lands and no due process of law has been followed before seeking to evict the petitioners. 6. Perused the aforesaid notice (Annexure-11 to the writ petition), asking the encroachers to vacate their encroachment on their own by 11.09.2025 or to appear in the hearing held at Circle Officer’s Office, Naduar Revenue Circle on 07.09.2025, with all the relevant documents regarding ownership. 7. 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 Page No.# 4/6 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 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 Page No.# 5/6 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 are facets of Article 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution. 8. As recorded hereinabove, in the case in hand, the petitioners claims to be in possession of a patta land. On the other hand, the notice discloses that there are doubts regarding occupancy of the land and accordingly, a survey was conducted by a team deputed by Joint Director of Surveys, Assam, Dakingaon. Accordingly, a report has been submitted and in terms of such report, the lands in question are government khas land, however, in such notice, no specific description of the land which is found after verification to be government khas land is disclosed. 9. In the considered opinion of this court and in the given facts of the present case, though a notice has been issued to the petitioners to place their case, however, in absence of the particulars of the report based on which the respondent authorities had issued the notice, is furnished to the petitioners, to make an effective reply, more particularly when they claim to be patta holder, it can’t be a reasonable opportunity of hearing. In the given facts of the present case, reasonable opportunity of hearing shall mean furnishing of the report based on which the petitioners are alleged to be occupying government khas land. 10. In the considered opinion of this court, such notice issued shall not satisfy the prescription made by the Division Bench in Salak Uddin (supra) as recorded hereinabove. 11. That being the position, it is provided that the proposed Page No.# 6/6 eviction, based on the Annexure-11 notice, shall not be acted upon for the time being. The respondents shall furnish the material/copy of the report, based on which the respondents have issued the notice of eviction (Annexure-11 of the writ petition) along with the particulars of the government khas land, which the petitioners are allegedly occupying, giving them 15 days’ time to submit reply and to give them a hearing date as has been proposed in the impugned notice. Thereafter, the respondent District Commissioner, shall consider the matter and pass a speaking order. In the event, the District Commissioner, still holds that petitioners are encroacher of government khas land, they may be given further 15 days time before evicting them. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant