Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 10243 (GAU)

Faizul Hoque S/o Saha Ali v. State of Assam

2026-03-13

Devashis Baruah

body2026
JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1. I have also heard Ms. M. Barman, the learned Junior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5. 2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioners against an action initiated by the District Administration for evicting the Petitioners on the ground that the land in question under the occupation of the Petitioners are Village Grazing Reserve lands. 3. The facts of the instant case as it emerges from the perusal of the writ petition are that the Petitioners claim that they are landless, erosion and flood affected people who are residing in the village Belguri Kacharigaon under Samaguri Revenue Circle, in the District of Nagaon for the last 50-60 years. They expected that the authorities considering their plight would grant allotment of land to them. Be that as it may, nothing is mentioned that they have applied for allotment of land by filing any application. 4. It is the case of the Petitioners that on 03.12.2025, the Respondent Authorities by using mic, announced that the land under their possession is a part of the Village Grazing Reserve and they would be evicted within 15 days from the date of the said announcement. 5. It is the case of the Petitioners that no notice was issued giving them an opportunity to submit their representation claiming their right to remain in occupation of the said land under their possession and also to contest the point that the land in question is not VGR land. Under such circumstances, the Petitioners have approached this Court. 6. This Court vide an order dated 09.01.2026 passed an interim order directing that till 19.01.2026, the Respondents shall not proceed to evict the Petitioners except otherwise following the due process of law. The record reveals that the said interim order thereupon have been extended from time to time. 7. In the meanwhile, an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the Respondent No.2 stating inter alia that the lands where the Petitioners have been occupying are VGR lands located at Village Beloguri Kachari Gaon under Mouza Khatowal, Samaguri Revenue Circle, Nagaon. The Petitioners are neither owners nor tenants of the lands which are recorded as VGR lands. 7. In the meanwhile, an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the Respondent No.2 stating inter alia that the lands where the Petitioners have been occupying are VGR lands located at Village Beloguri Kachari Gaon under Mouza Khatowal, Samaguri Revenue Circle, Nagaon. The Petitioners are neither owners nor tenants of the lands which are recorded as VGR lands. Notices were issued to all those who were in possession of lands and they were asked to submit documents on 12.12.2025. But the Petitioners failed to produce any documents substantiating their rights to remain in possession. 8. This Court has given an anxious consideration to the respective pleadings and also heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 9. The submissions so made by the learned counsels are in line of their respective pleadings and for the sake of brevity, this Court is not repeating the same. However, there is a submission being made that even in VGR lands, the question of eviction may not arise as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others , (2011) 11 SCC 396 when such VGR lands are used for community purposes and therefore would come within the ambit of public utility of the land. 10. In the backdrop of the above, this Court finds it very pertinent to take note of that it is an admitted fact that the lands in question under the occupation of the Petitioners are Government lands which is yet to be allotted to the Petitioners. Nothing is brought on record that the Petitioners have sought for allotment of the lands under their occupation. 11. This Court has taken note of the Assam Land Policy, 2019 and more particularly, Clause 6 which relates to Village Grazing Reserve and Professional Grazing Reserve and other reserved land. A perusal of Clause 6.1 reveals that the District Commissioners are required to make necessary endeavour to preserve the existing VGRs and PGRs for use by the members of the public for the purpose for which those were constituted and encroachment of VGRs and PGRs, if any, has to be removed. It is also mentioned that the land under the VGRs and PGRs would not be further decreased by way of de-reservation and allotment, etc. except for public purposes under special circumstances as defined by Judicial pronouncements. It is also mentioned that the land under the VGRs and PGRs would not be further decreased by way of de-reservation and allotment, etc. except for public purposes under special circumstances as defined by Judicial pronouncements. Clause 6.1 of the Assam Land Policy, 2019 being relevant is reproduced hereunder: “ 6.1. Deputy Commissioners shall make necessary endeavour to preserve the existing V.G.Rs and P.G.Rs for use by the members of the public for the purpose for which those were constituted and encroachment on V.G.Rs and P.G.Rs. if any, will be removed. Henceforth, the land under V.G.Rs and P.G.Rs. will not be further decreased by way of de-reservation and allotment etc. except for public purposes under special circumstances as defined by Judicial pronouncements.” 12. Clause 3 of the Assam Land Policy, 2019 stipulates as regards the policy of the Government of Assam pertaining to allotment/settlement of land for homestead purpose in rural areas. Therefore, a reading of the Assam Land Policy, 2019 makes it abundantly clear that it is the policy decision of the Government not to grant allotment in Village Grazing Reserves and Professional Grazing Reserves and other reserved lands except under special circumstances as defined in Judicial pronouncements. 13. At this stage, this Court finds it pertinent to take note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Singh (supra) and more particularly to the observations made at Paragraph No.23 which is reproduced herein under: “ 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. 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 or other public utility on the land.” 14. From the above quoted paragraph, it would be seen that directions were issued upon the Chief Secretaries of all State Governments/Union Territories to prepare Schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorized occupants of Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat/poramboke/Shamlat lands and these lands were to be restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the common use of the villagers of the village. Even long duration of such illegal occupation or huge expenditure in making constructions or political connections must not be treated as a justification for condoning an illegal act or for regularizing illegal possession. The Supreme Court further observed the regularization of the occupation can be permitted in exceptional cases i.e. when 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, or other public utility on the land. The use of the word “regularization” at Paragraph No.23 of the judgment in Jagpal Singh (supra) makes it very clear that it is only where there is already a lease being granted in the case of landless labourers or members of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes or where there is already a school, dispensary or public utility on the land, the steps for eviction may not be resorted. However, reading the judgment in the case of Jagpal Singh (supra) along with Clause 6.1 of the Assam Land Policy, 2019, makes it clear that there can be no grant of allotment in respect to Village Grazing Reserve, Professional Grazing Reserve or reserved land. 15. This Court in the previous segments of the instant order has clearly observed that in rural areas, the Government has the power to grant allotment and settlement as is mandated in Clause 3 of the Assam Land Policy, 2019. 15. This Court in the previous segments of the instant order has clearly observed that in rural areas, the Government has the power to grant allotment and settlement as is mandated in Clause 3 of the Assam Land Policy, 2019. Under such circumstances, a person who is in occupation of Government khas land has a right to claim settlement over wastelands only inasmuch as, it is only in Government wasteland where settlement/allotment can be permitted. 16. The Petitioners herein have contended that the land under their occupation is not Village Grazing Reserve inasmuch for being a Village Grazing Reserve, there is a requirement of certain notifications to be issued in that regard. 17. The above analysis therefore would show that if the lands in question are not Village Grazing Reserve or declared as Village Grazing Reserve as per the mandate of the law, the Petitioners would have rights to seek allotment which would obviously have to be done as per the policy of the Government. For the sake of clarity, this Court finds it pertinent to observe that the right to seek allotment/settlement is subject to satisfaction of the various parameters as laid down or in other words, the right to seek allotment is a right to be considered for being allotted Government waste land. 18. Be that as it may, the Petitioners definitely have a right to make their respective representations to the effect that the land in question is not a VGR land. The Petitioners also have a right to seek allotment of Government waste land as they claim to be landless marginalized group of the society. 19. The Respondents have a right to evict under Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, even from Khas Government land, apart from VGR lands, PGR lands and reserved lands etc. But as the Petitioners have also a right to submit a reply, as has been already held by the learned Division Bench in the case of Md. Salak Uddin Vs. State of Assam and Others , (2024) SCC OnLine Gau 921, it is the opinion of this Court that the instant writ petition is required to be disposed of by passing certain directions. 20. Salak Uddin Vs. State of Assam and Others , (2024) SCC OnLine Gau 921, it is the opinion of this Court that the instant writ petition is required to be disposed of by passing certain directions. 20. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i) The Petitioners herein are given the liberty to submit their respective representations to the District Commissioner, Nagaon within a period of 20 days from the date of the present order i.e. on or before 06.04.2026. Along with their respective representations, the Petitioners would be at liberty to submit such other documentary evidences which would show that the Petitioners have a right for being allotted the lands under their occupation for which the Petitioners should not be evicted. (ii) The District Commissioner thereupon can either decide those representations by himself or through the Co-District Commissioner. (iii) The District Commissioner or the Co-District Commissioner, as the case may be, shall fix a date of hearing and grant a personal hearing to the Petitioners. (iv) Upon hearing, the District Commissioner or the Co-District Commissioner shall pass a Speaking Order. (v) If the Speaking Order so passed by the District Commissioner or the Co-District Commissioner, as the case may be, is not in favour of the Petitioners, for a period of 15 days from the date of notice of the Speaking Order, no steps for eviction be carried out. (vi) It is further observed that it shall be within the jurisdiction of the District Commissioner or the Co-District Commissioner to fix a date for passing of the Speaking Order and if on the said date, the Speaking Order is passed, it shall be deemed that the Petitioners have notice of the passing of the Speaking Order. (vii) Till the entire procedures as delineated above are followed, status quo be maintained as regards the present possession.