Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010068472024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1840/2024 PHUKAN CHANDRA BORA S/O PREMESWAR BORA, R/O NUMALI JALAH, MOUZA- SINDURIGHUPA, P.S. CHANGSARI, IN THE DISTRICT KAMRUP (RURAL), GUWAHATI, ASSAM-781031 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006. 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM GUWAHATI ULUBARI GUWAHATI-781007. 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM REVENUE RELIEF AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KAMRUP (RURAL) AMINGAON GUWAHATI-781031 5:THE SUB-DEPUTY COLLECTOR AMINGAON REVENUE CIRCLE AMINGAON GUWAHATI- 781031 6:THE CIRCLE OFFICER KAMRUP (RURAL) AMINGAON Page No.# 2/9 REVENUE CIRCLE GUWAHATI- 781031 7:THE LAT MONDAL KAMRUP (RURAL) AMINGAON REVENUE CIRCLE GUWAHATI-781031 8:THE OFFICER IN-CHARGE GAURIPUR POLICE STATION AMINGAON GUWAHATI-781031. 9:GUWAHATI BIOTECH PARK THROUGH THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER HAVING OFFICE AT AMINGAON NEAR S.P. OFFICE GUWAHATI-78103 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D DAS SR. ADV, MS S SHARMA,MR K TALUKDAR Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MS. PADMINI BARUA (R-9),MS. RUKMINI BARUA (R-9),SC, REVENUE Linked Case : WP(C)/2288/2024 PHUKAN CHANDRA BORA S/O LT PREMESWAR BORS R/O NUMALI JALAH MOUZA SINDURGHUPA P.S. CHANGSARI DIST. KAMRUP RURAL GUWAHATI ASSAM 781031 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS REP BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI 6 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM GUWAHATI ULUBARI GUWAHATI 7 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM REVENUE RELIEF AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPTT DISPUR GUWAHATI 6 4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KAMRUP RURAL AMINGAON GUWAHATI 31 Page No.# 3/9 5:THE SUB DEPUTY COLLECTOR AMINGAON REVENUE CIRCLE AMINGAON GUWAHATI 31 6:THECIRCLE OFFICER KAMRUP RURAL AMINGAON REVENUE CIRCLE AMINGAON GUWAHATI 31 7:THE LAT MONDAL KAMRUP RURAL AMINGAON REVENUE CIRCLE AMINGAON GUWAHATI 31 8:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE GAURIPUR POLICE STATION AMINGAON GUWHATI 31 9:GUWAHATI BIOTECH PARK THROUGH THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER HAVING OFFICE AT AMINGAON NEAR S P OFFICE GUWAHATI 31 ------------ Advocate for : MR. D DAS SR. ADV Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 16-12-2025 Heard Shri K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department. 2. Both the writ petitions are being filed by the same petitioner and being connected, the same are taken up together for disposal at the admission stage. 3. The first writ petition was instituted against a notice dated Page No.# 4/9 22.03.2024 issued by the Circle Officer, Amingaon directing the petitioner to vacate the land which he was possessing. The second writ petition challenges an order dated 12.04.2024 whereby his application for settlement of land has been rejected. 4. There is a checkered history including history of litigations. As per the facts projected, the petitioner is in possession of a plot of land since the year 1982. In the year 2014, there was an attempt to evict the petitioner from the land in question and accordingly, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing WP(C)/4033/2014. The said writ petition was disposed of vide an order dated 18.02.2019 with a direction that the petitioner shall not be evicted without following the due process of law and without issuing a notice under Rule 18 (3) of the Settlement Rules. The respondent authorities had thereafter issued a notice dated 21.06.2021 directing the petitioner to appear. The petitioner had thereafter filed another writ petition being WP(C)/3187/2021 which was disposed of vide an order dated 28.08.2023 giving liberty to the respondent authorities to take steps as permissible under the law. 5. Further notices were issued to the petitioner on 28.11.2023 and 20.12.2023 which were also the subject matter of challenge in WP(C)/7581/2023 and the said notices were interfered with by this Court vide order dated 22.12.2023. However, the respondents were given liberty to proceed in accordance with law as per the earlier order dated 18.02.2019 passed in WP(C)/4033/2014. The petitioner had thereafter made an application praying for allotment of land. However, without considering the same, the impugned notice was issued on 22.03.2024 Page No.# 5/9 directing the petitioner to vacate the land. In the meantime, as noted above, the application for allotment was rejected vide an order dated 12.04.2024 which is the subject matter of challenge in the second writ petition i.e. WP(C)/2288/2024. 6. Shri Talukdar, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is not in dispute that the land in question is government land. However, the petitioner is an indigenous citizen, who is in possession thereof since 1982 and this aspect has been lost sight of by the respondent authorities while considering the case of the petitioner. The mechanical approach of the respondent authorities is also highlighted by the rejection order dated 12.04.2024 and this Court had taken cognizance of the said aspect and had recorded that the reasons for rejection was not found to be satisfactory. The learned counsel has also submitted that so far as the alternative plot of land proposed to be allotted is concerned, it is in an area which is not inhabited till a radius of about 5 kms. It is also contended that the two children of the petitioner are having their final exams of Class-XII and Class-X which are scheduled in March, 2026. 7. Shri R. Borpujari, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that it is not in dispute that the land in question is a government land and what is more important is that a biotech park is being constructed over the plot of land including the portion which is occupied by the petitioner. He has submitted that long period of possession over government land will not vest any right to any individual and the notices under Rule 18 (3) has been issued on public interest and there is no mala fide involvement. He Page No.# 6/9 has also placed before this Court certain photographs to contend that the area in question is in the middle of the proposed Bio- tech park which would be engaged for a research and development project which is of a national importance. He has also submitted that the order of rejection dated 12.04.2024 which is the subject matter of challenge in the second writ petition is in fact a speaking order whereby all the relevant factors have been taken into consideration. 8. On the aspect of the alternative plot which is proposed to be allotted to the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioner cannot have a say in such allotment regarding its suitability as the prerogative is of the government and no right is vested on an individual to choose a particular plot of land. He has also submitted that there was due application of mind before making the aforesaid proposal as no other lands were available. 9. Ms. P. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 9 has endorsed the submission of the learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department and has emphasized the aspect of the importance of the Guwahati Biotech park which has progressed a lot and the encumbrance upon the land has not been removed as the petitioner is in illegal occupation. She has submitted that the park would be associated with research and development works which are of national importance and would also be a significant milestone for the State of Assam. 10. Shri Talukdar, the learned counsel for the petitioner has, in his reply submitted that the proposal to have a biotech park is pending since a Page No.# 7/9 decade and were handed over possession in the year 2014 itself and there cannot be any extreme urgency, as projected. 11. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been duly examined. 12. The aspect that the land over which the petitioner is in possession is government land is not in dispute. Though it is a matter of fact that the earlier move to have the land encroachment free was successfully challenged by the petitioner, there have been observations by this Court to carry out eviction by following the due process of law which accordingly appears to have been done. What is of significance is that this Court while considering both the matters on 03.09.2025 had passed the following order: “ Heard Mr. D. Das, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Borpujari, learned standing counsel, Revenue Department, Assam. During the course of hearing, it is revealed that the petitioner is admittedly occupying a Govt. land without any authority and accordingly, he would be liable to be evicted there-from. However, it is found that the petitioner has been in occupation of the land in question since 1982. Although, the petitioner had made an application for settlement of a plot of land with him, the same was rejected by the District Commissioner, Kamrup at Amingaon vide order dated 12-04-2024. The reasoning as set out in the order dated 12-04- 2024 has been perused by this Court, however, this Court is not satisfied with the same. Be that as it may, Mr. R. Borpujari, learned standing counsel, Revenue Department, Assam is requested to require the District Commissioner, Kamrup Page No.# 8/9 at Amingaon to explore as to whether a plot of land measuring 1K-5L is available within the Kamrup (Rural) district in a residential area. The said plot of land be identified and particulars thereof be placed before this Court on the next date of listing. Registry to list this matter again on 16-10-2025. Interim order passed earlier to continue till the next date of listing.” 13. This Court had observed that it was an admitted fact that the petitioner was occupying government land without any authority and therefore liable to be evicted there from. As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department, the said observations have not been put to any challenge and has attained finality. 14. This Court is accordingly of the opinion that the said aspect is not required to be again gone into by this Court and the only issue is with regard to the suitability or otherwise of the alternative plot of land which has now been proposed for the petitioner in terms of the order dated 03.09.2025. The aspect of allotment of land cannot be a vested right and the right would only extent to a fair consideration. As a corollary thereof, an applicant seeking allotment cannot choose any particular plot of land. This Court has recorded the submission that the present proposal has been done by applying mind and the plot allotted is the only suitable plot which can be given to the petitioner. 15. Under those circumstances, it is difficult for this Court to accept the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that further exploration be done on other alternative plots of land. Page No.# 9/9 16. The only aspect which however is of concern is of the fact that the children of the petitioner are having their final examination schedule in March, 2026. The said issue has also to be looked into from the point of view that from 1982 the petitioner is in continuous possession of the land. At the same time, the importance of the biotech park and the early completion of the project cannot be ignored and overlooked. Therefore, striking balance, it is directed that while this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned action, it is provided that the petitioner would be given time till April, 2026 to vacate from the land in question. If however by 30.04.2026, the petitioner does not vacate the said premises, the respondent authorities may take all steps for evicting the petitioners in accordance with law. 17. Both the writ petitions stand disposed of in terms of the observations made above. 18. It is made clear that observation has been passed on the peculiar facts and circumstances and will not be deemed as a precedent. JUDGE Comparing Assistant