Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010288632019 2025:GAU-AS:10981 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/8739/2019 HASEN ALI AND 4 ORS. S/O- LT. MANURUDDIN, VILL. KATHANIBARI, P.O. AND P.S. THELAMARA, DIST- SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN- 784149. 2: ABDUL KADIR S/O LT. ABDUL GOFUR VILL. KATHANIBARI P.O. AND P.S. THELAMARA DIST.- SONITPUR ASSAM PIN- 784149. 3: MD. SAHED ALI S/O LT. IMAN ALI VILL. KATHANIBARI P.O. AND P.S. THELAMARA DIST.- SONITPUR ASSAM PIN- 784149. 4: ABDUL GOFUR S/O- LT. HARMUJ ALI VILL. KATHANIBARI P.O. AND P.S. THELAMARA DIST.- SONITPUR ASSAM PIN- 784149. 5: MD. ALAL UDDIN S/O- LT. ABDUL KHALEK VILL. KATHANIBARI P.O. AND P.S. THELAMARA DIST.- SONITPUR ASSAM PIN- 784149 VERSUS Page No.# 2/4 THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE (SETTLEMENT) DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY.-06. 2:THE DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS REHABARI GUWAHATI PIN- 781008. 3:THE DY. COMMISSIONER SONITPUR TEZPUR ASSAM PIN- 781001. 4:THE ADDL. DY. COMMISSIONER SONITPUR TEZPUR ASSAM PIN- 781001. 5:THE CIRCLE OFFICER THELAMARA REVENUE CIRCLE THELAMARA P.O. THELAMARA DIST- SONITPUR ASSAM PIN- 784149 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K ROYCHOUDHURY, MR. B RAHMAN Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, REVENUE BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 18/08/2025 Heard Mr. B Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A Bhattacharjee, learned Standing counsel, Revenue Department appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Also heard Mr. H Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5. Page No.# 3/4 2. The petitioners in the present proceeding have prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities for issuance of Pattas in respect of the land allotted to them individually by the respondent authorities under Dag No. 157 (Part) of Village-Khatanibari under Naharoni Mouza of Thelamara Revenue Circle, District-Sonitpur. 3. The petitioners in the present proceeding have contended that they being river eroded landless people had occupied the Government land covered by Dag No.157 (Part) of Village- Khatanibari under Naharoni Mouza of Thelamara Revenue Circle in the District of Sonitpur. 4. The petitioners further contended that they were allotted individual plots of land by the respondent authorities sometime in the year 1992. The petitioners since the date of initial occupation of the land in question have been continuing to possess the land involved. The respondents having not issued the Pattas to the petitioners, they have instituted the present proceeding. 5. Mr. B Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioners has reiterated the facts as noticed hereinabove and has also submitted that the petitioners’ possession of the land in question for a long period of time is not disputed. However, the respondent authorities have denied issuance of Pattas to the petitioners for reasons not disclosed. 6. Mr. H Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, appearing for the State respondents, submits that the land covered by Dag No. 157 (Part) of Village-Khatanibari, Mouza- Naharoni under Thelamara Revenue Circle, District-Sonitpur is reserved as a VGR land and accordingly, in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, reported in (2011) 11 SCC 396, no settlement over the said land is permissible to be made. Accordingly, the petitioners herein were not issued with the Pattas. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 8. The petitioners in the present writ petition have contended that the villages, wherein they were residing, having been eroded by the river and they having been rendered landless, they had proceeded to occupy Government land covered by Dag No. 157 (Part) of Village-Khatanibari, Mouza- Naharoni under Thelamara Revenue Circle, District-Sonitpur. While the said statement has been made in the writ petition, there is no further disclosure in the writ petition about the villages wherein the petitioners were so residing before being affected on account of river erosion and/or of the particulars of land held by the petitioners in their original village. Page No.# 4/4 9. The petitioners have admitted that they are occupying Dag No. 157 (Part) of Village- Khatanibari, Mouza-Naharoni under Thelamara Revenue Circle, District-Sonitpur. 10. The respondents in their affidavit have raised a categorical contention to the effect that the land covered by Dag No. 157 (Part), which is possessed by the petitioners, is a VGR land. The said contention was raised in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur, Tezpur on 27.02.2020. For the last around five years, the petitioners have not disputed the said contention made in the affidavit by the respondent No. 3, by way of filing a rejoinder. 11. In view of the said position, the land in question being a VGR land and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision in the case of Jagpal Singh (Supra) having categorically held that such land would not be permissible to be so settled with an individual, this Court is not in a position to accept the contentions made by the petitioners in this writ petition. 12. Accordingly, the reliefs as sought for in the present writ petition would not mandate an acceptance. 13. In view of the above position, the present writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. However, dismissal of the present writ petition would not bar to the petitioners to approach the respondent authorities by disclosure of all relevant particulars for being allotted a plot of land in terms of the land policy holding the field as on date. JUDGE Comparing Assistant