Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010213462023 2026:GAU-AS:3611 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5549/2023 KHALILUR ROHMAN AND 9 ORS S/O LT. FALU MIA R/O VILL. BAIKHUNGAON P.O. AND P.S. DHALIGAON DIST. CHIRANG BTC ASSAM 2: JOLI MIA S/O LT. FALU MIA R/O VILL. BAIKHUNGAON P.O. AND P.S. DHALIGAON DIST. CHIRANG BTC ASSAM 3: JOHURA KHATUN W/O LT. SURAT JAMAL @ SURAJ ALI R/O VILL. BAIKHUNGAON P.O. AND P.S. DHALIGAON DIST. CHIRANG BTC ASSAM 4: BASIRON BEWA W/O LT GUJRAT ALI R/O VILL. BAIKHUNGAON P.O. AND P.S. DHALIGAON DIST. CHIRANG BTC ASSAM 5: SAHERAK KHATUN W/O LT. HUSSAIN ALI @ HUSSEN ALI SK R/O VILL. BAIKHUNGAON P.O. AND P.S. DHALIGAON DIST. CHIRANG BTC ASSAM 6: JAMALUDDIN SK S/O LT SYED ALI R/O VILL. BAIKHUNGAON P.O. AND P.S. DHALIGAON DIST. CHIRANG BTC ASSAM 7: BAHAR ALI S/O LT. RUSTOM ALI R/O VILL. BAIKHUNGAON P.O. AND P.S. DHALIGAON DIST. CHIRANG BTC ASSAM 8: SULEMAN SK S/O LT. AHAMMAD ALI R/O VILL. BAIKHUNGAON P.O. AND P.S. DHALIGAON DIST. CHIRANG BTC ASSAM 9: NAZIM UDDIN @ NAJIM ALI SK S/O LT. USIN ALI @ IYACHIN ALI SK R/O VILL. BAIKHUNGAON P.O. AND Page No.# 2/10 P.S. DHALIGAON DIST. CHIRANG BTC ASSAM 10: ROHIMA KHATUN W/O LT. FOTIK ALI @ FOTIK ALI MIA R/O VILL. BAIKHUNGAON P.O. AND P.S. DHALIGAON DIST. CHIRANG BTC ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM REVENUE DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 2:THE CHIEF SECRETARY BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL BTC KOKRAJHAR DIST. KOKRAJHAR BTC ASSAM PIN 783370 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CHIRANG P.O. KAJALGAON DIST. CHIRANG BTC ASSAM PIN 783385 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CHIRANG DIST. CHIRANG BTC ASSAM PIN 783385 5:THE CIRCLE OFFICER SIDLI REVENUE CIRCLE DIST. CHIRANG BTC ASSAM PIN 78337 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. DA Kaiyum Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. HK Sarma, Addl.Sr. Govt. Advocate Ms. N Bordoloi, Standing Counsel Revenue & Disaster Management Deptt. Ms. N Choudhury, Page No.# 3/10 Standing Counsel BTC Date on which Judgment is reserved : NA Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 11.03.2026 Whether the Pronouncement is of the : NA Operative Part of the Judgment Whether the Full Judgment has been : Yes Pronounced JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. DA Kaiyum, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. I have also heard Ms. N Bordoloi, the learned Standing Counsel, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Govt. of Assam; Mr. HK Sarma, the learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam who appears on behalf of the State respondents; and Ms. N Choudhury, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the BTC. 2. Apprehending that the petitioners would be evicted from the land under their possession, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner No.6, father of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and husbands of the petitioner Nos.3, 4 and 5 were Page No.# 4/10 earlier residents of Village: Kanibhor, PO Bengtal, P.S: Sidli, in the Kokrajhar district and further the petitioner Nos.7, 8 and 9 and husband of petitioner No.10 were earlier residents of village Dankha Nagar, PO: Khagrabari, P.S: Dhaligaon in the district of Kokrajhar, Assam, but on account of erosion of the river Aie, in the devastating flood of the year 1988, the dwelling houses of the petitioners were destroyed and damaged. The petitioners, therefore, took shelter over the Government land covered by Dag No. 53 by constructing temporary straw chali houses situated at village Baikhungaon, PO and P.S. Dhaligaon under Sidli Revenue Circle in the district of Chirang, BTC Assam. Eviction notices were issued against the petitioners in the year 1990. The petitioners thereupon challenged those eviction notices in a proceedings before the Assam Board of Revenue under Section 169(B) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation 1886 (for short, ‘the Regulation’). Vide an order dated 20.11.1991, the learned Assam Board of Revenue interfered with the notices issued and directed the Deputy Commissioner to consider the prayer of the petitioners with a further direction to take action in the matter of rehabilitation of the petitioners. The petitioners, therefore, on various occasions requested the Revenue and Disaster Management Department as well as the District Commissioner for granting rehabilitation to the petitioners by issuing them patta. However, the same was not considered. In the year 2023, the petitioners could come to learn that a move was made on the part of the District Administration along with the BTC to evict the petitioners, and it is under such circumstances that this writ petition has been filed. 4. It is relevant to take note of that by an order dated 22.09.2023, this Court had issued notice and further directed that the petitioners should not be evicted Page No.# 5/10 from the land under their occupation without following the due process of law. More than two and half years have passed by, but the respondents have not filed any affidavit or placed any instructions before this Court. 5. This Court has also perused the writ petition as well as the notices which were issued against the petitioners. These notices were issued in terms with Section 165 of the Regulation, meaning thereby that steps were being taken in terms with Chapter X of the Regulation. 6. The petitioners have also filed their appeal under Section 169 of the Regulation before the learned Assam Board of Revenue. This Court has also perused the judgment of the learned Assam Board of Revenue, wherein the learned Assam Board of Revenue took into consideration that the petitioners were occupying the said land on account of being victims of the floods of the year 1988. 7. Be that as it may, it appears from the judgment passed by the learned Assam Board of Revenue that the provisions of Chapter X of the Regulations were taken into consideration. It is also relevant to take note of that the petitioners on the basis of the judgment passed by the learned Assam Board of Revenue dated 20.11.1991 in Case No.151 RA (BNG)/1990 have been representing before the concerned respondent authorities seeking rehabilitation, which however has not been taken into consideration. 8. This Court now finds it very pertinent to take note of that as the instant writ petition was filed on the ground of an apprehension of eviction. The law Page No.# 6/10 being well settled that any eviction being carried out has to be done so by following a procedure mandated under law. In that regard, this Court finds it relevant to refer to a judgment and order dated 20.09.2024 passed in the case of Jaharul Islam Choudhury and 22 others Vs. State of Assam & 4 Others passed in W.P(C) No.4818/2024, whereby this Court had passed certain directions, taking into consideration certain observations made by the Supreme Court in the order dated 03.02.2020. Paragraph Nos.6 to 11 of the said judgment and order being relevant are reproduced hereinunder: “6. In the backdrop of the above submissions, this Court have duly given an anxious consideration to the challenge so made to the impugned notices dated 13.09.2024/14.09.2024 and the submissions so made by the learned counsels for the parties. It is seen from a perusal of Chapter-X of the Regulation that by Section 60, an obligation has been cast upon the State Government to adopt such measures as it deems fit for protection of those Classes who, on account of their primitive conditions and lack of education or material advantages, are incapable of looking after their welfare in so far as such welfare depends upon having sufficient land for their maintenance. In terms of Section 161 of the Regulation, a power has been conferred upon the State Government to constitute compact areas in regions predominantly occupied by people notified under the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 160 of the Regulation in Belts or Blocks. It is seen that the notification dated 27.02.1950 has been issued in exercise of the powers under Section 161 of the Regulation. Section 163 of the Regulation stipulates the manner of disposal of land for the purpose of cultivation and Section 164 of the Regulation stipulates about the rights of settlement holders and landholders. In terms of Section 164 of the Regulation, there is a bar on acquisition in a Belt or Block unless such a person does not belong to a Class of people notified under Section 160 of the Regulation or to a person who is not a permanent resident in that Belt or Block. Section 164 (A) and Section 164 (B) of the Regulation were inserted by amendment carried out in 1981 and 1990 respectively in order to make Chapter-X more effective. Section 165 of the Regulation stipulates the manner in which the ejectment Page No.# 7/10 and eviction could be carried out. Section 165 of the Regulation envisages different treatment to different Classes of persons who are in occupation of lands falling under Chapter-X. The first of such groups are those persons occupying without authority; the second are those who are annually settled and third those who have been periodically settled. In the case of the first and second group, eviction can be carried out forthwith whereas as regards the third group there is the mandatory requirement to follow the process in terms with Section 163 (3) of the Regulation. 7. This Court has also given its anxious consideration to the submission so made by the learned Advocate General which seems to be in consonance to the direction so passed by the Supreme Court in its order dated 03.02.2020. The said order is reproduced herein under:- “Permission to file Special Leave Petitions is granted. The principal grievance of petitioners before this court is that peremptory directions have been issued by the High Court which are likely to be construed as having been issued after recording finding of fact that the petitioners and similarly placed occupants in the concerned area are unauthorized occupants. This apprehension, in our opinion, is misplaced. For, the tenor of the order which is impugned in these Special Leave Petitions is merely to direct the Deputy Commissioner to proceed against the unauthorized occupants in accordance with law – which presupposes that the Deputy Commissioner must examine the claim of each occupant on case to case basis and after recording satisfaction in light of evidence produced before him proceed to pass appropriate order(s) as per law. We may add that, if that order is adverse to the occupants, the Deputy Commissioner must give reasonable time to the occupants to take recourse to appropriate remedy as may be permissible in law. In other words, the Deputy Commissioner shall decide the proceedings uninfluenced by any of the observations made by the High Court in the impugned judgment and order. It will be open to the Deputy Commissioner to request the High Court to Page No.# 8/10 extend the timeline specified in terms of the impugned judgment and order, which request we are certain would be considered appropriately by the High Court. Besides this, nothing more is required to be clarified. These Special Leave Petitions are disposed of accordingly. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.” (emphasis applied to the underlined portion) 8. From the above order, it is clear that the Supreme Court observed that the Deputy Commissioner must examine the claim of each occupants on case to case basis and after recording satisfaction in the light of evidence produced before him, proceed to pass appropriate orders as per law. The Supreme Court further observed that if that order is adverse to the occupants, the Deputy Commissioner must give reasonable time to the occupant to take recourse to an appropriate remedy as may be permissible in law. Furthermore, the Supreme Court also observed that the Deputy Commissioners shall decide the proceedings uninfluenced by any of the observations made by the High Court in the order dated 09.12.2019. 9. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the interest of justice would be met if the petitioners herein are granted the liberty to submit their respective representations within 30.09.2024 before the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro) along with all their supporting documents. The Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro) is further directed thereupon to decide the claim of the petitioners by giving them an opportunity of hearing. Thereupon, the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro) shall pass respective speaking order(s) as per the provisions of law. The Deputy Commissioner shall also keep in mind the directions passed by the Supreme Court dated 03.02.2020 as quoted hereinabove and more particularly to the portion where emphasis has been supplied by this Court. 10. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that certain orders are required to be passed to the effect that the petitioners may not be evicted on the basis of the impugned notices dated 13.09.2024/14.09.2024. 11. Mr. D. Saikia, the learned Advocate General gives an undertaking to that effect Page No.# 9/10 that no action would be taken against the petitioners till the representations are disposed of in the manner directed by the Supreme Court in the order dated 03.02.2020.” 9. It is the opinion of this Court that the petitioners herein also would be entitled to similar directions. Accordingly, the instant writ petition, therefore, stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i). The petitioners herein are given the liberty to submit individual representations before the District Commissioner, Chirang within 31.03.2026 along with all supporting documents, claiming their rights to remain in possession over the lands in question under their occupation. (ii). The District Commissioner Chirang is directed, upon receipt of the said representation to decide the claims of the petitioners by taking into account Chapter X of the Regulation by giving them an opportunity of hearing. The personal hearing to the petitioners, who submitted the representation(s) would be afforded either by the District Commissioner or the Co-District Commissioner, as the case may be. (iii). The District Commissioner, Chirang, or the Co-District Commissioner shall pass respective speaking orders against the representation submitted as per the provisions of law. (iv). This Court further observes and directs that in the circumstance the Speaking Orders so passed by the District Commissioner or the Co-District Commissioner as the case may be are not favorable to the petitioners, for a period of 30 days from the date the Speaking Order is served upon the petitioners, no steps for eviction be carried out. (v). It shall be within the jurisdiction and authority of the District Page No.# 10/10 Commissioner and/or the Co-District Commissioner, as the case may be, to fix the date of passing of the Speaking Order, and if on the said date the Speaking Order is passed, it shall be deemed that the petitioners had notice about the passing of the said order. JUDGE Comparing Assistant