Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010006782025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/202/2025 MUNSER ALI S/O LT. KESHAB ALI, R/O VILL- BALATARI, P.O.-JAMADARHAT, P.S.- FAKIRGANJ, DIST-DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN-783330 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF DEFENSE, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-01 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DISPUR GHY-6 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-06 4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DISTRICT PIN-783301 5:THE CIRCLE OFFICER DHUBRI REVENUE CIRCLE DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM 783301 Page No.# 2/5 6:THE ZILA SAINIK WELFARE OFFICER DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-78330 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M U MONDAL, MR. A W MONDAL,MR A ALIM SK,MR K ISLAM,J ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR. B CHAKRAVARTY(C.G.C),SC, REVENUE,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 22.04.2026 Heard Shri M.U. Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri J. Handique, learned State Counsel, Ms. N. Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department and Shri B. Chakraborty, learned CGC. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is against a notice dated 23.12.2024 issued by the Circle Officer, Dhubri Revenue Circle whereby the petitioner is directed to vacate the plot of land which is under his possession. 3. As per the facts projected, the petitioner claims to be an ex-army, who had retired from service on 01.03.2017 and is in possession of a plot of land measuring 2 Bigha at Jhagrarpar Pt-I, covered by Dag Nos. 766/319, 331/319 which is newly numbered as Dag No. 781. The petitioner states that he has constructed dwelling houses and also is having valuable trees. The petitioner relies upon certain communication issued by the Ministry of Defence whereby preference is to be given for allotment of land to ex-army personnel. 4. Shri Mondal, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Page No.# 3/5 without considering the communications of the Central Government to give preference, the impugned notice dated 23.12.2024 has been issued. 5. Per contra, Shri Handique, the learned State Counsel had pointed out that from the materials on record, the petitioner appears to be a resident of Goalpara whereas the land in question which is the subject matter of the notice dated 23.12.2024 is in the district of Dhubri. He has also submitted that there is no clear averment that the petitioner does not possess land anywhere else in Assam, more particularly in the district of Goalpara which is reflected in his documents. He has also submitted that though there is a statement that the application of the petitioner for allotment of land under Bashundara 2.0 has been rejected, such rejection is not the subject matter of challenge. He has also informed that the writ petition was filed by suppressing materials facts inasmuch as the eviction process was already initiated on 09.01.2025 and 10.01.2025 and the writ petition was moved only on 20.01.2025. 6. Ms. Bordoloi, the learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department, while endorsing the submission of the learned State Counsel has contended that the issue would be covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench passed in the case of Md. Salak Uddin Vs. State of Assam reported in 2024 (4) GLT 859. 7. Shri Chakraborty, the learned CGC has submitted that the Central government would not have any role in adjudication of the present lis and the communications referred to by the petitioner are only in the form of recommendation. 8. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined. Page No.# 4/5 9. From the materials on record and from the submissions, it is clear that the impugned notice dated 23.12.2024 was already acted upon before the writ petition was moved. There is also a statement that the application for allotment of land under Bashundara 2.0 was rejected and such rejection is not the subject matter of challenge. 10. The Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of Md.Salak Uddin (supra) has laid down the following guidelines: “63. We further find it very pertinent herein to observe that taking into account Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules which deals with all kinds of lands post 1997 Amendment, the bona fide claim of right involved may be different in all such cases. In the case of Government khas land or waste land, an occupant/possessor may have a bonafide claim of right involved to claim settlement over the land on the basis of the Settlement Rules and extant Land Policy of the Government of Assam. In respect to 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 is a complete bar in respect to granting settlements pertaining to lands reserved for roads or roadside lands or for grazing of village cattle. As regards land previously reserved for public purposes, it is outside the scheme of granting settlement. Under such circumstances, the question arises as to whether there is a requirement of issuance of any notice for adjudging as to whether there is a bonafide claim of right involved. In our opinion there might be various situations wherein there may be question of disputes pertaining to the boundary or there may be disputes pertaining to reservations or dereservation 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 public purposes. The above examples are illustrative and there might be varied circumstances depending on situational variations. Under such circumstances, issuance of a notice in the opinion of this Court to form the subjective satisfaction would be inconsonance with the principles of natural justice and just fair, transparent procedure which are facets of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.” Page No.# 5/5 11. This Court is of the opinion that while no relief can be granted to the petitioner as the impugned notice has already been acted upon, the petitioner would be at liberty to pray for allotment of suitable land under the present policy and if such application is made, the same is directed to be considered strictly in accordance with law, along with similarly situated persons. It is made clear that this direction is only for consideration and should not be construed as a direction for allotment. 12. The writ petition accordingly stands closed. 13. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. JUDGE Comparing Assistant