JUDGMENT : Devashis Baruah, J. Heard Mr. S Dey, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. R Barpujari, the learned Standing Counsel, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, who appears on behalf of all the respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the notice dated 05.07.2018 bearing No.B.K.C.41/2013/1093 issued by the respondent No.4 3. The brief facts of the instant case as would be apparent from the perusal of the materials on record is that the petitioner herein is a Cooperative Society which is operating the Kaziranga National Orchid and Biodiversity Park (hereinafter to be referred to as the ‘Orchid Park’). The said Orchid Park is spread across an area of 28 bighas, 1 katha, 18 lechas of land at Durgapur village. Initially when the Orchid Park was established, an area of land ad measuring 22 bighas 2 kathas 10 lechas under Dag No.171/398/175/232/233/283 of Haluwa NC Gaon under Kaziranga Mouza was allotted to the petitioner society. It is the further case of the petitioner solely that taking into account that the petitioner Society seeks to conserve and preserve the rich culture and tradition of the indigenous people of Assam, the local inhabitants of Haluwa NC Gaon under Kaziranga Mouza handed over additionally 6 bighas 1 kathas 12 lechas of land bearing Dag No.398 and 176 and the petitioner Society thereupon had spread its Orchid Park in a total area of 28 bighas 1 katha 18 lechas. Taking into account that the land in question i.e. 6 bighas 1 katha 12 lechas of land covered by Dag No.398 and 176 of Haluwa NC Gaon under Kaziranga Mouza was a Government land, the petitioner Society sought for allotment of the said land so that the entire 28 bighas 1 katha 18 lechas wherein the petitioner’s Orchid Park is spread out can be retained. In that regard, the petitioner Society has submitted an application on 22.05.2018 which the petitioner Society claims that the same is pending. 4. Be that as it may to the shock and surprise of the petitioner Society a notice dated 05.07.2018 was issued by the respondent No.4 whereby the petitioner Society was asked to vacate the plot of land within 7(seven) days, failing which the petitioner Society would be evicted from the said plot of land as per law. 4. Be that as it may to the shock and surprise of the petitioner Society a notice dated 05.07.2018 was issued by the respondent No.4 whereby the petitioner Society was asked to vacate the plot of land within 7(seven) days, failing which the petitioner Society would be evicted from the said plot of land as per law. The petitioner Society, accordingly, challenged the said notice dated 05.07.2018 by filing the instant writ petition on 09.07.2018. 5. The record reveals that this Court vide a detailed order dated 11.07.2018 issued notice and further stayed the impugned notice dated 05.07.2018 until further orders. The record further reveals that the respondent No.2 had filed an affidavit-in-opposition on 27.07.2020 and the petitioner had also filed a reply thereagainst on 18.08.2025. 6. The question which arises before this Court, therefore, in the present facts is as to whether the notice dated 05.07.2018 can be sustained in law. The impugned notice dated 05.07.2018 is in vernacular and the same has been translated. Both the parties herein agree that the translation so made is an accurate translation. Accordingly, the translated notice dated 05.07.2018 is reproduced hereinunder: This is for your information that from the report of the field verification conducted on the basis of the letter dated 20-08-2018 issued by the Officer-in-Charge, Bokakhat Police Station it is shown that you have been illegally occupying a plot of land measuring 6 Bighas 1 Katha 12 Lechas in addition to the allotted land in the name of Kaziranga National Orchid Park. In this regard, vide letter No.B.R.S.24/2016/42 dated 19-06-2018 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer and letter No.43/2016/81 dated 8/06/2018 issued by the Deputy Commissioner you are hereby directed to vacate the illegal occupation of the said plot of land within 7(seven) days from the date of receipt of this notice. Otherwise you will be evicted from the said plot of land as per law. Take the matter as urgent. Schedule: Mouza-Kaziranga Village-Halowa N.C Village. Dag No.171, 398 Area-6 Bighas 1 Katha 12 Lechas. Sd./-Illegible Circle Officer Bokakhat Revenue Circle Dated 5-07-2018 Memo No.B.K.C.41/2013/1093 Ka Copy to: 1. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Bokakhat for information. Sd./-Illegible Circle Officer Bokakhat Revenue Circle” 7. A perusal of the above-quoted notice would show that the action initiated for evicting the petitioner Society is on the basis of a field verification conducted by the Officer-in-Charge of Bokakhat Police Station. Sd./-Illegible Circle Officer Bokakhat Revenue Circle Dated 5-07-2018 Memo No.B.K.C.41/2013/1093 Ka Copy to: 1. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Bokakhat for information. Sd./-Illegible Circle Officer Bokakhat Revenue Circle” 7. A perusal of the above-quoted notice would show that the action initiated for evicting the petitioner Society is on the basis of a field verification conducted by the Officer-in-Charge of Bokakhat Police Station. This Court is shocked and surprised at the contents of the notice issued by the respondent No.4, who is a Circle Officer, inasmuch as, it is only the Revenue Authority, who could have come to a finding after carrying out necessary verification as to whether the petitioner Society is in encroachment of any land beyond the land which has been allotted. The notice under no circumstances, could have been issued based upon a field verification carried out by a Police Officer. Under such circumstances, the very edifice on which the notice stands cannot be sustained in law. 8. Mr. S Dey, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that in view of the judgment of the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Md. Salak Uddin Vs. State of Assam and Others reported in (2024) SCC Online Gau 921, the petitioner Society is entitled to a notice. In addition to that, the learned counsel also submitted that when a notice is to be issued, the notice has to be a reasonable notice, thereby providing an opportunity to the petitioner Society to place the necessary materials on the basis of which the petitioner Society can claim that it is entitled to the allotment of the land, in question, in view of the extant Land Policy of Assam, 2019 and that the possession of the petitioner Society as well as its predecessor have matured in the meantime. 9. This Court has given an anxious consideration to the respective submissions and is of the opinion that if the petitioner Society is required to be evicted by the respondent authorities, the same has to be done on the basis of a verification to be conducted by a Revenue Officer and not on the basis of a report being submitted by a Police Officer. In addition to that, this Court is of the further opinion that in the circumstance any steps are required to be taken for the purpose of eviction of the petitioner Society, the same should comply with the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution. In this regard, this Court finds it very pertinent to take note of the judgment passed by this Court on 13.02.2026 in the case of Abul Ali & Ors. Vs. the State of Assam & Ors. in WP(C)No.818/2026 and it is the opinion of this Court that the petitioner Society is also entitled to similar directions. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i). The Notice dated 05.07.2018 impugned in the instant proceedings is set aside and quashed. (ii). In the circumstance, the respondents herein are of the opinion that steps for eviction are required to be taken as against the petitioner Society, a notice has to be issued to the petitioner Society thereby affording the opportunity to show cause to the petitioner. (iii). This Court further observes and directs that the opportunity so given in the notice has to be for atleast a minimum period of 15(fifteen) days from the date of receipt of the said notice. (iv). The petitioner Society thereupon would be at liberty to file a reply/representation claiming as to why it should be allowed to remain in occupation of the said land ad measuring 6 bighas 1 katha 12 lechas covered by Dag No.398 and 176 of Haluwa NC Gaon under Kaziranga Mouza in the district of Golaghat. (v). This Court further directs that if the petitioner Society submits a representation along with necessary evidence supporting its case within such period and not less than 15(fifteen) days from the date of receipt of such notice, the District Commissioner, Golaghat or the Co-District Commissioner shall consider and decide the reply/representation so submitted by taking into account the provisions of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, 1886 , the Settlement Rules as well as the Assam Land Policy of 2019 (vi). This Court further is of the opinion that as this Court has granted liberty to the petitioner Society for the purpose of adducing evidence, the petitioner Society should be granted a personal hearing so that it can explain the evidences adduced. (vii). This Court further is of the opinion that as this Court has granted liberty to the petitioner Society for the purpose of adducing evidence, the petitioner Society should be granted a personal hearing so that it can explain the evidences adduced. (vii). This Court further observes that on the basis of the above, the District Commissioner or the Co-District Commissioner as the case may be shall decide on the reply/representation so submitted by the petitioner Society and thereupon pass a speaking order. (viii). It is further observed and directed that in the circumstances, the Speaking Order is not in favour of the petitioner Society, 15 (fifteen) days time may be given from the date of service of the Speaking Order to the petitioner Society, so that the petitioner Society can take resort to such permissible course of action as permitted under the law. It shall be within the authority of the District Commissioner or the Co-District Commissioner that while deciding the said representation/reply to fix a date for passing of the Speaking Order on the date of personal hearing or such date as per convenience. (ix). Before parting with the records, this Court finds it very pertinent to observe that this Court has not decided on the application seeking allotment by the petitioner Society which is a separate cause of action. This Court hopes and believes that the respondents herein shall also decide the same as per the Assam Land Policy of 2019.