Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010144422026 2026:GAU-AS:13326 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C)/1793/2026 MAHA ALOM AND 50 ORS. S/O ABDUL KADER 2: BOJOR ALI S/O JAFAR ALI 3: JULHASHEN SK. S/O ABDUL KADER 4: SOMIRAN BIBI W/O NUR SALAM 5: SAHAR UDDIN S/O ABDUL KADER 6: SALAM UDDIN S/O RAMJAN ALI 7: SANTESH ALI S/O NUR ISLAM 8: ABU SAMA S/O JOYNAL 9: ASMAT ALI S/O HASEM ALI 10: SUJAL HOQUE S/O OSMAN 11: AKHER ALI S/O NUR ISLAM Page No.# 2/10 12: KALAM UDDIN S/O ABUL HUSSAIN 13: SULTAN ALI S/O AINUDDIN 14: NISHAN ALI S/O BAKKAR ALI 15: OSMAN ALI S/O BAKKAR ALI 16: KABED ALI S/O ACHER MUNSHI 17: ASAD ALI S/O CHANDU MOLLAH 18: MONIR UDDIN S/O NAJMUL HOQUE 19: FATEMA BIBI W/O ASHAN ALI 20: HARMUJ ALI S/O TAHER ALI 21: HAYET ALI S/O TAHER ALI 22: HANIF ALI SK. S/O INNUS ALI 23: SAMSER ALI S/O ABDUL ROSID 24: MOYNUDDIN SHEIKH S/O NURUL ISLAM 25: MAJIRAN BIBI W/O AB. ROSID 26: SAHID ALI S/O SAJAHAN ALI 27: ABDUL JOYNAL S/O ABDUL GAFUR Page No.# 3/10 28: TAHIJUL HOQUE S/O ASHAN ALI 29: ATOSH ALI S/O NUR ISLAM 30: KOMOR ALI S/O IMAN ALI 31: SHAHADAT ALI S/O INNAS ALI 32: BILLAL HUSSAIN S/O TUFAINA SHEIKH 33: BOJAL HOQUE S/O ABDUL SAMAD 34: ABDUL HAMID SHEIKH W/O JAMAL UDDIN 35: KUDDUS ALI S/O SUKKUR ALI 36: ABDUR REZZAQUE S/O AIJUDDIN SK. 37: AIJUDDIN SHEIKH S/O MAKSED 38: NIDAN ALI S/O SHUKKUR ALI 39: ABDUL HASHEM S/O SATTAR ALI 40: JAMAL UDDIN S/O KADAM ALI 41: AIJAL HOQUE S/O JASMAT 42: MAJID ALI S/O SULTAN ALI 43: SANTESH ALI S/O AIJAL HOQUE Page No.# 4/10 44: MIZANUR RAHMAN S/O SER ALI 45: AKSED ALI S/O SHUKKUR ALI 46: SIYANA KHATUN W/O ABDUL RASHID 47: OMESA KHATUN W/O FOZOR ALI 48: AJIRAN BIBI W/O AKBAR ALI 49: SANUAR HUSSAIN S/O ABDUL MOJID 50: SHAHA ALOM S/O ABDUL GONI MONDAL 51: MONER ALI S/O IBRAHIM ALI ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILL- CHARUABAKHRA JUNGLE BLOCK P.O. CHIRAKATA P.S. CHAPAR DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783348. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER OF DHUBRI DISTRICT AT DHUBRI P.O. AND DIST. DHUBRI PIN- 783301 3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER CHAPAR REVENUE CIRCLE P.O. CHAPAR Page No.# 5/10 DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783371 4:THE COMMISSIONER OF BILASIPARA CO-DISTRICT P.O. BILASIPARA DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783348. 5:THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. (APDCL) REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN- 781001. 6:THE CO-DISTRICT LAND ADVISORY COMMITTEE BILASIPARA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN/CO-DISTRICT COMMISSIONER OF BILASIPARA P.O. BILASIPARA DIST. DHUBRI PIN-783348. 7:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF POWER DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. ------------ B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Advocates for the petitioner(s) : Mr. MA Sheikh Advocates for the Respondent(s) : Mr. HK Hazarika Govt. Advocate, Assam Mr. R Barpujari Standing Counsel, Page No.# 6/10 Revenue and Disaster Management Deptt. Mr. B Das, Standing Counsel, APDCL Date on which Judgment is reserved: NA Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 11.09.2026 Whether the Pronouncement is of the : Yes Operative Part of the Judgment Whether the Full Judgment has been : No Pronounced JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL) Heard MA Sheikh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners. Mr. R Barpujari, the learned Standing Counsel, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Govt. Of Assam appears on behalf of Respondent No.1; Mr. G Hazarika, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of Respondent Nos.2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 and Mr. B Das, the learned Standing Counsel, APDCL appears on behalf of Respondent No.5. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the rejection of their applications seeking settlement of the land under their occupation, which is Dag No. 1/70/117, Revenue Village: Charuabakhra Jungle Block, Revenue Circle: Chapar, in the District of Dhubri, which have been specifically identified in the Schedules to the writ petition as Schedule A to Schedule Z25. 3. This Court has perused the ground for rejection of the Petitioners applications, wherein it is stated that the possession of the land is disputed. Page No.# 7/10 4. Be that as it may, it is of importance to take note of that the land wherein the Petitioners are asking for settlement have already been allotted to Respondent No.5 for setting up of solar project, which is for public purpose. 5. The Respondents categorically claim that the Petitioners have been evicted. 6. The question, therefore, arises is as to whether the rejection of the applications filed by the Petitioners seeking settlement of the lands specifically described in Schedule A to Schedule Z25 by various orders which have been enclosed as Annexure-64 to Annexure-114, are required to be interfered with. 7. It is well settled as to what lands the Government can grant settlement and as to what lands the government cannot grant settlement. Lands which have been previously reserved for roads, or roadside lands, or for grazing of village cattle, or for other public purpose cannot be granted for settlement. This aspect would also be clear from the judgment of the learned Division Bench in the case of Md. Salak Uddin Vs. the State of Assam & Others reported in 2024(4) GLT 857. 8. A further perusal of the Settlement Rules, more particularly Rule 1(2)(b) of the Settlement Rules, would show as to what is meant by “waste lands” i.e. those lands which are at the disposal of the Government and have not been disposed by way of lease, grant, or otherwise. 9. In the instant case, the lands which were under the occupation of the Petitioners have already been disposed of by the Government by allotting the Page No.# 8/10 same to Respondent No.5 for public purpose. 10. Under such circumstances, the question of granting settlement of the lands, which have been specifically described in Schedule A to Schedule Z25 to the Petitioners do not arise. 11. Be that as it may, every indigenous landless cultivator has a right to be considered for settlement of rural land as per the policy of the Government of Assam, i.e. the Assam Land Policy of 2019. 12. In addition to that, in terms with Clause 1.7 of the Assam Land Policy of 2019, preference is given to those persons who have been described in sub- clauses (a) to (d) of Clause 1.7 of the Land Policy of 2019. 13. At this stage, this Court also finds it relevant to take note of that Rule 15 of the Settlement Rules makes it clear that merely because of the fact that a person is in possession of a Government land, he has no right for settlement. The right is only to be considered for settlement in accordance with Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, the Settlement Rules, the Assam Land Policy, 2019 and the settled principles of law. 14. This Court also takes note of that Clause 1 of the Assam Land Policy of 2019 does not conceptualize that a person has to be in possession of the land to claim settlement. 15. Under such circumstances, the reasons so assigned by which the Page No.# 9/10 applications of the Petitioners seeking settlement were rejected appear to be beyond the purview of the Assam Land Policy of 2019 read with Rule 15 of the Settlement Rules. 16. Accordingly, this Court, therefore, is of the opinion that the rejection of the applications submitted by the Petitioners calls for interference, however, subject to the observations and directions given hereinunder. 17. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with the following observation(s) and direction(s): (i). The Petitioners herein are not entitled for settlement of the lands which have been specifically described in Schedule A to Schedule Z25, as the said lands have already been allotted to Respondent No. 5 by the State Government for public purpose. (ii). The Petitioners if they are indigenous landless cultivators, they have a right to be considered for settlement in respect to any other rural waste land of the Government. (iii). The rejection of the Petitioners applications seeking settlement on the ground of dispute in possession is interfered with, inasmuch as possession of Government land is not a factor to be taken into consideration for grant of allotment and settlement of Government land for ordinary cultivation in rural area. (iv). Accordingly, the applications so submitted by the Petitioners seeking settlement are restored to the file and have to be independently taken into consideration by the District Commissioner, Dhubri, on the basis of Clause 1 of the Assam Land Policy of 2019 read with the Settlement Page No.# 10/10 Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 and the observations made in the instant judgment. (v). This Court, however, for the sake of clarity, makes it clear that these applications which have been restored to the file have to be considered only for any waste land other than the land which have been reserved or allotted for public purpose. (vi). Taking into account the preferences granted in terms with Clause 1.7, this Court grants the Petitioners an additional opportunity to submit necessary documents to the District Commissioner, Dhubri within a period of 15 days from the date of the present judgment to substantiate as to whether the Petitioners have, in addition to being indigenous landless cultivators, are entitled to preferential consideration. (vii). The District Commissioner, Dhubri is directed to consider such applications and pass individual speaking orders in respect to the applications so submitted by the Petitioners along with the additional documents if so submitted within 90 days from the date a certified copy of this judgment is served upon the District Commissioner, Dhubri. (viii). There shall be no order as to cost(s). JUDGE Comparing Assistant