Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010045192025 2025:GAU-AS:4468 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1311/2025 BINITA DAS BARUAH W/O SRI DEBAJIT BARUAH, R/O H/NO. 7, BALIRAM RAJBONGSHI PATH, P.O- GORCHUK, P.S- GORCHUK, DISTRICT- KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. REPRESENT BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI-01 ASSAM 3:CIRCLE OFFICER GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE DISTRICT KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B PHUKAN, MR. P K GOGOI Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPT, GA, ASSAM Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY O R D E R 09.04.2025 1. Heard Mr. B Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. PR Mahanta, learned standing counsel for the Revenue Department for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. J Handique, learned State counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. The petitioner has projected that the petitioner is in occupation of a plot of land measuring 1 Katha 10 Lechas, covered by Dag No. 679, situated at revenue village- Pub Boragaon, Mouza- Jalukbari, District- Kamrup (M) since the year 2000. The petitioner has approached this court aggrieved by service of a notice dated 01.02.2025 issued under the hand of the respondent No. 3, whereby, the petitioner has been asked to vacate the plot of land within a period of fifteen days, or else, necessary action would be taken as per law. 3. A Division Bench of this court in WP(C) 1057/2022 (Md. Salak Uddin Vs. State of Assam and 2 Ors.) while dealing with a reference as to whether a notice is required to be issued under Section 18(2) of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 has made certain conclusion. Since such conclusions are having importance and determinative factor in adjudication of an eviction process, the same are curved out in the following manner: I. Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules clearly shows that Deputy Commissioner or such authority duly empowered under Rule 3 of the Settlement Rule has to arrive at a subjective satisfaction that there is no bona-fide claim of right. II. Revenue authorities cannot be permitted to unilaterally Page No.# 3/4 decide as to whether an occupier/ possessor has a bona-fide claim of right involved inasmuch as it would require adjudication of both law and facts and without providing an opportunity to the occupier / possessor, would be in violation of the principle of natural justice which in turn would violate Article 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution. III. Though Rule 18 (2) is silent on the question of issuance of the notice, but use of the word ‘forthwith’ does not necessarily and absolutely exclude the prior application of audi alteram partem Rule inasmuch as immediacy or urgency requiring swift action is a situational fact, having a direct nexus with the likelihood of adverse affect. IV. Bona-fide claim, in case of Government khas land or waste land, may involve a bona-fide claim of right to claim settlement over the land on the basis of settlement Rules and extant land policy of the Government of Assam. In respect of 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 may be various situations, where the question of disputes pertaining to the boundary or there may be disputes pertaining to reservations or de-reservation 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 the purpose, may arise. V. Under such circumstances, issuance of a notice shall be Page No.# 4/4 necessary to form a subjective satisfaction, which is in consonance with the principles of natural justice inasmuch as same will facilitate a just, fair and transparent procedure, which are facets of Article 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution. 4. In the aforesaid settle proposition of law, let this court consider the factum of the present case. In the case in hand, the petitioner has claimed a bona-fide right to continue possession over the plot of land. At the same time, the notice is silent as regards the nature of the land, which is also not permissible under Rule 18 (2) of the Settlement Rules inasmuch as an assertion is required to be made whether the land is khas land, Government khas land or reserved for any grazing ground or for reserved for any roadside land etc. as emphasised under Rule 18 (2) of the Settlement Rule. 5. That being the position, in the considered opinion of this court the impugned notice issued to the petitioner is not even sustainable under the scheme of Rule 18 (2) of the Settlement Rules. Accordingly, same are set aside. 6. However, this order shall not restrain the revenue authorities including the revenue circle officer to issue a notice of eviction under the Settlement Rules, however, the decision to evict the petitioner if any shall be made in terms of the principle laid down in the case of Md. Salak Uddin (supra). 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of in the manner determined hereinabove. Parties to bear their own costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant