Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010250122024 2025:GAU-AS:14134 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6256/2024 SAMSUL HOQUE AND 4 ORS S/O- LATE KADER BOKSO, R/O- VILL.- PANCHARATNA, P.O. GOBINDAPUR, P.S. AND DIST. GOALPARA, ASSAM 2: RAMCHARAN CHOUDHURY S/O- LATE BIRJULALA CHOUDHURY R/O- VILL.- PANCHARATNA P.O. GOBINDAPUR P.S. AND DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM 3: AMRITA CHETRI S/O- LATE BHIMBAHADUR CHETRI R/O- VILL.- PANCHARATNA P.O. GOBINDAPUR P.S. AND DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM 4: ENUS ALI S/O- LATE MOHAMMAD ALI R/O- VILL.- PANCHARATNA P.O. GOBINDAPUR P.S. AND DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM 5: MOYNAL HOQUE S/O- LATE SAHANUR ALI R/O- VILL.- PANCHARATNA P.O. GOBINDAPUR P.S. AND DIST. GOALPARA ASSA VERSUS Page No.# 2/9 THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06. 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER GOALPARA P.O. P.S. AND DIST GOALPARA ASSAM PIN- 783101. 3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER BALIJANA REVENUE CIRCLE BELTOLA DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM PIN- 783129. 4:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PWD ROAD GOALPARA AND SOUTH SALMARA ROAD DIVISION GOALPARA ASSAM PIN- 783121. 5:THE DISTRICT ROAD SAFETY COMMITTEE GOALPARA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER GOALPARA ASSAM PIN- 783121 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K ROYCHOUDHURY, MD A HUSSAIN,MR. M HOQUE Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, REVENUE,SC, PWD BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER Date : 24.10.2025 Heard Mr. P. K. Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Page No.# 3/9 Mr. B. J. Talukdar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Bhattarcjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. A. K. Medhi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5. 2. The pleadings in the matter are completed and therefore, the matter has been taken up for disposal with the consent of both the parties. 3. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the writ petitioners being aggrieved by the notice dated 13.11.2024 issued by the Office of the Circle Officer Balijana Revenue Circle, Beltola, Dist, Goalpara. The aforesaid notice had been issued to notify all concern, who have illegally been possessing the Government khas land described in the notice requiring “all concern to remove the establishment, houses, shops, building and cultivation products from the land described and vacate the same within 15 days from receipt of the notice”. 4. The notice further recorded that in case of failure, the concerned notice would be evicted and would also face imposition of penalty. Responding to the said notice, the petitioners had filed a representation on 20.11.2024. The said representation had not been answered or decided by the respondents and therefore, the present writ petition was filed before this Court. 5. Mr. P. K. Roychoudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has Page No.# 4/9 submitted that the notice impugned in the present writ petition cannot stand the scrutiny of law, in view of the law settled by order dated 27.06.2024, passed in the Case of Md. Salak Uddin –Vs- the State of Assam and Ors reported in 2024 (4) GLT 857, and the order dated 13.11.2024, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 380 of 2022. 6. Mr. P. K. Roychoudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that notices in this format have been struck down by this Court and directions have been issued to the following effect. “(i) The respondents shall issue fresh individual notices to the appellants/ alleged encroachers of the government land in respect of which the General Eviction Notices dated 01.11.2022 and 10.11.2022 had been issued, asking them to show cause as to why they should not be evicted from the government land by taking recourse to Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules. The respondents shall issue such individual notices to the appellants/alleged encroachers within a period of 30 (thirty) days from today. (ii) the appellants in the present two writ appeals are at liberty to submit individual replies to the notices to be issued by the respondents, along with documentary evidence, if any, showing cause Page No.# 5/9 that they have bona fide claim over the plots of land under their occupation and, as such, recourse to Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules is not permissible. Such replies to the individual notices shall be filed by the appellants/alleged encroachers within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from the date of issuance of the individual notices. (iii) The District Commissioner, Kamrup (M) shall provide opportunity of hearing to the appellants/ alleged encroachers either personally, or through their authorized representatives and shall, thereupon, pass appropriate speaking orders. The District Commissioner, Kamrup (M) is further directed to allot a particular area in his office for submission of replies by the appellants. (iv) The District Commissioner, Kamrup (M) upon passing of the speaking order(S), as directed hereinabove, shall notify on the Notice Board of his office about passing of the speaking order(s). (v) Until completion of the exercise, as directed above, no coercive measures shall be taken against the appellants. (vi) Until completion of the exercise, as directed above, no coercive measures shall be taken against the appellants. (vii) It is also made clear that if any of the appellants fail to respond Page No.# 6/9 to the notice to be issued under Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules, within the time stipulated above, the respondents shall be free to take action in accordance with law. (viii) As prayed for by the appellants herein, it is provided that the above direct ions shall not preclude the right of the appellants to prefer individual applicants before the jurisdictional District Commissioner praying for allotment of plot of land by invoking the provisions of the Assam Land Policy, 2019, or any other policy presently holding the field in this connection. In the event of filing such application by any or all the appellants the jurisdictional district Commissioner shall take steps for causing due consideration of such applications, independent of the process for removal of encroachment, in terms of the direction Nos. (i) to (vii) passed hereinabove, and shall dispose of such applications expeditiously and strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Assam Land Policy, 2019, or any other policy presently in vogue in this connection, and communicate the outcome thereof to the appellants. In the event the jurisdictional District Commissioner is not competent to consider an dispose of the applications under the Assam Page No.# 7/9 Land Policy, 2019, he shall take steps for having the applications placed before the competent authority empowered to consider such applications, which authority shall also consider such applications expeditiously and strictly in accordance with the Assam Land Policy, 2019, or any other policy presently in vogue in this connection, and communicate to the appellants the outcome thereof.” 7. In view of the above, Mr. P. K. Roychoudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits, that the impugned notices deserve the interference of this Court and are liable to be set aside and quashed. 8. Mr. Roychoudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has also advanced arguments to the effect that since it is an admitted position that the land in question is khas land, a right has accrued to the petitioners in view of the Regulation 6(C) of the Assam Land Regulation, 1886. 9. He submits that, therefore the respondents are liable to be restrained by this Court from proceeding further with the notice dated 13.11.2024. 10. Appearing on behalf of the respondents, Mr. B. J. Talukdar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Bhattarcjee, appearing for the respondent No. 1 fairly submitted that the law being settled by the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the notices dated 13.11.2024, may require a revisit by the concerned authorities to Page No.# 8/9 the extend that individual notices are to be served upon the persons in occupation of the land and also to comply with the directions as stated herein above. He submits that however the right of the Government to cause notices to be issued cannot be disputed and on consideration of the reply to the said notices, the Government would be within its authority to cause eviction, if so required in the circumstances. 11. We have perused the Judgments referred to by the learned counsel of the petitioner and also have consider the submissions made on behalf of the parties. 12. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the respondents that the notice dated 13.11.2024, would indeed require a revisit by the authorities to comply with the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgments, this Court interferes with the notices dated 13.11.2024, thereby setting aside and quashing the same, however, with the liberty to the state respondents to issue proper and lawful notices, if so required to the occupants of the land in issue. It is also provided that in case such notices are received by the petitioners herein, they would be entitled to file their reply to such notices and the respondent authorities would be liable to consider all the grounds taken up in such notices/representations before coming to a final Page No.# 9/9 conclusion on the issue. 13. It is further observed that the respondent authorities would be expected to act in accordance with law while disposing of the representations and carrying out any further actions thereon. 14. The writ petition accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid directions. No costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant