Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010283532025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7372/2025 RAWMARI FAKALI MASJID AND EIDGAH AND ANR VILL- RUPAHI BHAKATGAON. P.O- RAWMARI P.S- RUPAHIHAT. DIST- NAGAON, ASSAM PIN-782125. 2: NEKIB UDDIN AHMED C/O- SULTAN ALI. AGE- 50 YEARS VILL- RAWMARI. DIST- NAGAON ASSA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 7 ORS TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF MINORITY AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI110001 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI - 781006 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NAGAON DISTRICT ASSAM-782001 4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER SAMAGURI REVENUE CIRCLE NAGAON DISTRICT ASSAM- 782140 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE NAGAON DISTRICT ASSAM - 782002. Page No.# 2/7 6:THE ASSAM STATE WAKF BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER HATIGAON GUWAHATI -38 7:THE FAKALI GAON PANCHAYAT/BAGURIGURI ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT CONCERNED REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT HAVING JURISDICTION OVER VILLAGE- RAWMARI P.S. RUPAHI DISTRICT NAGAON ASSAM 8:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BAGURIGURI DEVELOPMENT BLOCK NAGAON DISTRICT ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R BHUYAN, S LASKAR,MR N Z CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR H GUPTA (C.G.C),SC, FOREST,SC, REVENUE,DY.S.G.I. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 19.12.2025 Heard Shri A.R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri H. Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam; Shri RKD Choudhury, learned Dy. SGI and Ms. G. Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department. 2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and, as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage itself. Suffice it to mention that when this matter was taken up for consideration on 18.12.2025, time was granted to the learned Page No.# 3/7 counsel for the petitioners to obtain instructions, which he has accordingly done. 3. The Writ Court has been approached with the following prayers: “PRAYER In the premises of aforesaid it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ petition, call for the records and issue Rule, calling upon the Respondent authorities to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Certiorari, Mandamus and/or any other writ, order or direction, as prayed for shall not be issued to:- A) quash/set aside the impugned eviction notice dated 03/12/2025 issued by respondent authorities; B) direct/command the respondents not to give effect to the impugned eviction notice and not carry out any demolition or eviction action in respect of the land and Masjid and Eidgah under the occupation and management of the Petitioners; C) declare that the Petitioners occupation and use of the land in question is lawful and protected, and that no coercive action can be taken without due process of law and without cancellation of the lawful administrative decision governing the land; D) Pass such other order(s) as may be deemed just and proper in the interest of justice, equity, and good conscience. -AND- Upon cause/causes being shown by the respondents and on perusal of records and hearing the parties be pleased to make the Rule absolute. Page No.# 4/7 -AND- INTERIM PRAYER In the interim pending final disposal of this writ petition, this Hon'ble Court maybe pleased to i. quash/set aside the impugned eviction notice dated 03/12/2025 issued by respondent authorities; ii. restrain the Respondents from taking any coercive action, including eviction, demolition, or disturbance of possession and religious activities in respect of the land and Masjid under management the of the Petitioners; iii. maintain status quo in respect of the land and structure involved in the present writ petition; -AND- This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to pass such further order/orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. And your humble petitioner as in duty-bound shall ever pray for your Lordship's kind act.” 4. As per the facts projected, the petitioners are aggrieved by the eviction process over the land under their possession which the claim since the year 1994. It is also the case of the petitioners that in the year 2009, a proposal was mooted for such allotment and accordingly, there is a legitimate expectation for allotment of such land. 5. As recorded by this Court in the earlier order dated 18.12.2025, the stand Page No.# 5/7 of the respondent authorities is that admittedly, the land in question is grazing land and the issue of allotment of grazing land would not arise, more so, in view of the settled law, more particularly, the case of Jagpal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in (2011) 11 SCC 396. In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made the following observations: “23. Before parting with this case we give directions to all the State Governments in the country that they should prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorized occupants of Gram Sabha / Gram Panchayat / Poramboke / Shamlat land and these must be restored to the Gram Sabha / Gram Panchayat for the common use of villagers of the village. For this purpose the Chief Secretaries of all State Governments/Union Territories in India are directed to do the needful, taking the help of other senior officers of the Governments. The said scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of such illegal occupant, after giving him a show cause notice and a brief hearing. Long duration of such illegal occupation or huge expenditure in making constructions thereon or political connections must not be treated as a justification for condoning this illegal act or for regularizing the illegal possession. Regularization should only be permitted in exceptional cases e.g. where lease has been granted under some Government notification to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or where there is already a school, dispensary or other public utility on the land.” 6. It clearly appears that the land in question is grazing land. Though a proposal appears to have been mooted in the year 2009 from the Office of the District Commissioner, there is no material to show that the proposal has Page No.# 6/7 fructified in allotment of land. This Court is also doubtful on the legality and validity of such proposal which appears to be contrary to the settled law that grazing land can be allotted only under some Government notification to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or where there is already a school, dispensary or other public utility on the land, as clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In that view of the matter, this Court is unable to accede to the prayers made by the petitioners in this case. 7. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in similar cases, a reasonable opportunity has been granted to the incumbents to show cause along with documents which are to be considered in accordance with law. 8. The aforesaid submission, however, has been countered by Shri Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate and has submitted that time was already granted for making such representations which is explicit in the notice dated 03.12.2025. 9. Be that as it may, in the interest of justice and equity and also following the direction of the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of Salak Uddin (Md.) Vs. State of Assam & Ors. reported in 2024 (4) GLT 857, it is directed that further time till 26.12.2025 be granted to the petitioners to file their replies to the show cause notice dated 03.12.2025 along with supporting documents. 10. If such replies are filed within the aforesaid time, the same are required to be considered by the authorities expeditiously and in such consideration, the petitioners are required to be given an opportunity of personal hearing. If no replies are filed within the aforesaid time, the respondent authorities may go Page No.# 7/7 ahead as per law. It is further provided that if the consideration goes against the petitioners, a reasonable time of further 15 days be granted to the petitioners to vacate the land in question, failing which, necessary steps in accordance with law can be taken by the authorities. 11. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant