Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010051062018 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1550/2018 GOLAP HUSSAIN S/O- ABDUL HAQUE, R/O- BISHNUPALLY, HOJAI, WARD NO. 17, PO AND PS- HOJAI VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. (F) REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE DEPARTMENT 2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NAGAON NAGAON ASSAM 3:THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (CIVIL) HOJAI SHANKARDEV NAGAR NAGAO Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R J BARUA, MR. N G KUNDU,MR G DEKA,MS. P UPAMANYU Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MS. S SARMA, GOVT. ADVOCATE, ASSAM, R- 2 TO 4,MS N BORDOLOI, SC, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, R-1 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 16.10.2025 Heard Shri PK Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri Page No.# 2/6 H Sarma, learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate, Assam as well as Ms. G Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department, Assam. 2. As per the facts projected, the petitioner belongs to the BPL category and is in occupation of a land measuring 2 katha 10 lechas covered by Dag No. 8 Part situated at Pachim Dhaniram Path, Hojai wherein he has constructed a small residential house. It is also the case of the petitioner that there is a grazing reserve land in the name of Pachim Dhaniram Path under Mouza-Jagijan in the district of Hojai which encompasses an area of 300 bighas. The petitioner has approached the authority for settlement of the land in his favour as the area under his possession has been claimed to be de- reserved. It is also the case of the petitioner that similarly situated families who are landless had applied for such settlement. The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the inaction of the respondent authorities to bring the aspect of settlement of land to the petitioner to a logical conclusion and he has also apprehended eviction from the land in question. 3. This Court, vide order dated 22.03.20218 while issuing notice, had directed maintenance of status quo till the returnable date and the said order of status quo was directed to be continued until further orders vide order dated 21.05.2018. 4. Shri Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that consideration of his application for settlement of the land under his possession is a legal right which the petitioner is being deprived of. He has reiterated that he land under the possession of the petitioner has been de-reserved from grazing land and therefore, there is no bar in law for such consideration. He has reiterated that by virtue of the order passed by this Court for maintaining the status quo, the petitioner is enjoying possession of the land. Page No.# 3/6 5. Shri Sarma, learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate, Assam, by drawing the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 19.07.2022 by the respondent no. 2, has referred to the averments made in paragraph 4 thereof. In the said paragraph, it has been stated that the land in question is Village Grazing Reserve land and there has not been any action of de-reserving the same. He has submitted that there is a clear bar for allotting any land within the VGR land and in this regard, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.[1]. He has submitted that if the petitioner applies for settlement of any other land suitable for such settlement by fulfilling the conditions, the same would be considered under the present scheme. 6. Ms. Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department has endorsed the submissions advanced by the learned State Counsel. 7. Though the petitioner has made a statement that the land under his possession has been de-reserved, the same has been refuted by the official respondent no. 2 in the affidavit filed on 19.07.2022 which has been mentioned above. For ready reference, the averments made in paragraph 4 of the affidavit dated 19.07.2022 are extracted hereinbelow: “4. That with regard to the averments made in paragraph- 3 of the writ petition the deponent begs to state that there is 70 Bigha 3 Katha 9 Lessa land under Dag No. 8 of village Pachim Dhaniram Pather under Hojai Revenue Circle is Village Grazing Reserve land. As per field verification report received from the Circle Officer, Hojai Revenue Circle, land under Dag No 8 of Pachim Dhaniram Pathar is recorded as Govt. Grazing village land, in which one Israb Ali, S/O- Kulai Miya is residing with a procession of 2 Page No.# 4/6 Katha 10 Lessa land. However, petitioner Golap Hussain is not found in procession of any land, and said grazing reserve is also not de-reserved yet. Thus petitioner is not entitled to settlement.” 8. There is no rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner. As regards the allegation that similar lands have been allotted to other persons, in paragraph 5 of the said affidavit, it has been stated that though there has been some allotment, the land has not been de-reserved. 9. In the case of Jagpal Singh (supra), it has been clearly laid down that VGR/ Village Common Lands cannot be allotted to any individual as the same is for community purposes. Further, certain directions for taking such land encroachment free were also given, the relevant excerpts being quoted hereinbelow: “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/unauthorised occupants of the 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 regularising the illegal possession. Regularisation should only be permitted in exceptional cases e.g. where lease has been granted under some government notification to landless labourers or members of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or where there is already a school, dispensary Page No.# 5/6 or other public utility on the land.” 10. It also transpires that the aspect of de-reservation of the land as claimed by the petitioner has been disputed by the official respondents and as mentioned above, there is no rejoinder affidavit. The submission that certain land has been allotted to some persons cannot be cited as a precedent as there is no concept of negative equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In this regard one may gainfully refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jyostnamayee Mishra Vs. The State of Odisha[2]. The relevant portion is extracted hereinbelow: “31. ... Suffice to add, this Court cannot put a stamp on the illegalities committed by the department while perpetuating the same. A litigant coming to the Court cannot claim negative discrimination seeking direction from the Court to the department to act in violation of the law or statutory Rules. It is a settled proposition of law that Article 14 does not envisage negative equality. Reference for the purpose can be made to a judgment of this Court in R. Muthukumar & others v. The Chairman and Managing Director TANGEDCO & others. Relevant para thereof is extracted below : ‘28. A principle, axiomatic in this country's constitutional lore is that there is no negative equality. In other words, if there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people, without legal basis or justification, that benefit cannot multiply, or be relied upon as a principle of parity or equality. In Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, this court ruled that: ‘8. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons Page No.# 6/6 have been granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief as well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated’.” 11. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner would not have any right to claim possession under the VGR land and the State would be at liberty to initiate eviction process which, however, has to be done by following the due process of law and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Salak Uddin Vs. State of Assam & Ors.[3]. It is also observed that if the petitioner applies for settlement of any suitable land under the present scheme for settlement and fulfills the conditions, the same may be considered by the authorities in the manner prescribed by law. 12. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. 13. Interim order passed earlier stands merged with the present order. JUDGE [1] (2011) 11 SCC 396 [2] 2025 SCC OnLine SC 117 [3] 2024 (4) GLT 859 Comparing Assistant