Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010229242016 2026:GAU-AS:5579 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1414/2016 ISMOTARA BEGUM and ANR. W/O. ZAKIR HUSSAIN, VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT, DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY.-06. B E F O R E Hon’ble MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI Advocate for the petitioners : Shri M. Khan, Advocate. Advocates for the respondents : Shri D. Gogoi, SC, Forest Department. Shri J. Handique, GA. Shri A. Bhattacharyya, SC, Revenue Department. Shri Z. Hussain, Advocate, R – 6 Date on which judgment is reserved : NA Date of pronouncement of judgment : 23.04.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment? : NA Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes Page No.# 2/8 JUDGMENT AND ORDER The present application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been instituted by two petitioners with the following prayer: “In the premises aforesaid, it is therefore, most respectfully prayed that Your Lordships would be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records and issue a Rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ of certiorari be not issued by setting aside and quashing the impugned minutes dated 6.02.2016 (Annexure-4) of the then Sub-Divisional Land Advisory Committee so far it relates to the land of the petitioners in proposal No.48 and/or be pleased to direct the Respondents not to disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the land measuring 1K-10L covered by Dag No.414/64Pt in the Revenue Village Bhimapara under Mankachar Revenue Circle and/or cause or causes shown if any and upon hearing the parties, graciously be pleased to make the Rule absolute and/or pass such further or other order/orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper. -AND- Pending disposal of the Rule, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned minutes dated 6.02.2016 (Annexure-4) of the then Sub-Divisional Land Advisory Committee so far it relates to the land of the petitioners in proposal No.48 and/or pass such other order (s) as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper for the interest of justice. And for this act of kindness, the humble petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 2. As per the facts projected, the petitioners were affected by river erosion and they were occupying Government land measuring 15 lechas each covered by Dag No. 414/64 Pt. in the revenue village Bhimapara under Mankachar Revenue Circle. It is contended that such possession was from the year 2006. In the year 2015 the Sub-Divisional Land Advisory Committee, South Salmara, Mankachar Sub-Division (hereinafter SDLAC) in its meeting dated 23.11.2015 Page No.# 3/8 had approved the allotment of the land in favour of the petitioners. However, vide the impugned resolution of the Committee dated 06.02.2016, the aforesaid allotment has been cancelled and the land has been allotted to the respondent no. 6 – School. It is this action which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. 3. I have heard Shri M. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Shri J. Handique, learned State Counsel, Shri A. Bhattacharyya, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department and Shri Z. Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6. 4. Shri Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the decision by the SDLAC in the meeting held on 23.11.2015 had taken into consideration all the relevant factors and the approval for allotment was made in favour of the petitioners who were already in possession since more than a decade. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the resolution dated 23.11.2015 wherein the relevant aspect pertaining to the petitioners finds place against Sl. No. 48. He has submitted that by such decision, a right had vested upon the petitioners and by impugned resolution dated 06.02.2016 the said right has been infringed. He has submitted that apart from the impugned decision being irrational and arbitrary, the same is also in gross violation of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of any kind was afforded to the petitioners before such cancellation. 5. He has also submitted that the aspect that no opportunity was granted has been admitted by the respondent no. 2 in the affidavit filed on 26.08.2016. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to a recent affidavit filed by the respondent no. 5 on 19.03.2026 wherein the verification of the certificate pertaining to river erosion has been dealt with. Page No.# 4/8 6. Shri Khan, the learned counsel has informed this Court that while this writ petition was moved, there was a stay order which is in operation. 7. Shri Handique, the learned State Counsel has, on the other hand submitted that the resolution dated 23.11.2015 would not vest any indefeasible right upon the petitioners as such resolution would be required to be approved by the Government and pass allotment order. He has also highlighted that in the impugned resolution dated 06.02.2016 there is an observation that matters relating to individual land allotment would be taken up in the next meeting. The learned State Counsel has submitted that since no right had accrued to the petitioners, the impugned resolution dated 06.02.2016 cannot be faulted with. He has also submitted that the land is supposed to be allotted to the respondent no. 6 which is an educational institution. He has however fairly conceded that from the materials on record, it does not appear that any opportunity was granted to the petitioners before the impugned resolution was adopted. 8. Shri Bhattacharyya, the learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department has endorsed the submission of the learned State Counsel. 9. Shri Hussain, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 has submitted that the impugned resolution has cited reasons for cancellation and therefore the same does not warrant any interference. By drawing the attention of this Court to the impugned resolution dated 06.02.2016, he has submitted that the same clearly mentions that there was “no possession/ no landless/ short of other related documents” over the plot of land which includes the plot against sl. no. 48 pertaining to the land allotted to the petitioners. 10. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully perused. Page No.# 5/8 11. The present challenge has been structured on the grounds that the impugned order is arbitrary and unreasonable and also on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. The impugned resolution dated 06.02.2016 would reveal that certain reasons have been cited regarding lack of documents. The said reasons however have been stoutly disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners who has submitted that all relevant documents were present and those have been ignored. The other ground of challenge, as indicated above is violation of principles of natural justice. 12. In this regard, it would be pertinent to note the stand of the Deputy Commissioner - respondent no. 2 in the affidavit filed on 26.08.2016, the relevant part of which are extracted herein below: “4. That with regard to the statements made in Paragraph No. 2 of the writ petition, the deponent begs to state that the same being is not known whether the petitioner are occupying the said land from 2006, but at present, the petitioner are occupying the said land. 5. That with regard to the statements made in Paragraph No. 3 of the writ petition, the deponent admitted the fact that the SDLAC had approved the allotment on 23.11.2015. 6. That with regard to the statements made in Paragraph No. 4 of the writ petition, the deponent admitted the fact that Sl. No. 48 which was approved on 23.11.2015 was cancelled in the SDLAC vide Memo No. HRS-5/2000/Pt.-I/325 dated 06.02.2016 and the same plot of land was allotted in favour of Respondent No. 6. It was also decided that all individual land allotment would be taken up in next SDLAC. 7. That with regard to the statements made in Paragraph No. 5 of the writ petition, the deponent admitted the fact that notice was not issued, however field enquiry was conducted and report was submitted on the present status of the land in question.” 13. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the respondent Page No.# 6/8 no. 5 has also filed an affidavit recently on 19.03.2016 from which it appears that there were certain documents/certificates of being landless of the petitioners. 14. From the materials on record including the affidavits mentioned above, it is not in dispute that before adopting the impugned resolution dated 06.02.2016, no opportunity was granted to the petitioners. While Shri Handique, the learned State Counsel may be correct in contending that no indefeasible right has accrued upon the petitioners, taking into consideration that the petitioners are admittedly in possession of the land since the year 2006, principles of natural justice would require that an opportunity/notice be afforded to the petitioners so that they could place before the authority all the relevant documents and materials which admittedly has not been done. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgment has emphasized the requirement of adhering to the principles of natural justice in administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings. Certain observations made in the case of Uma Nath Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in AIR 2009 SC 2375 would be beneficial which are as follows: “6. Natural justice is another name for commonsense justice. Rules of natural justice are not codified canons. But they are principles ingrained into the conscience of man. Natural justice is the administration of justice in a commonsense liberal way. Justice is based substantially on natural ideals and human values. The administration of justice is to be freed from the narrow and restricted considerations which are usually associated with a formulated law involving linguistic technicalities and grammatical niceties. It is the substance of justice which has to determine its form. 7. The expressions "natural justice" and "legal justice" do not present a water-tight classification. It is the substance of justice which is to be secured by both, and whenever legal justice fails to achieve this solemn purpose, natural justice is called in aid of legal justice. Natural justice relieves legal justice from unnecessary technicality, grammatical pedantry or logical prevarication. It Page No.# 7/8 supplies the omissions of a formulated law. As Lord Buckmaster said, no form or procedure should ever be permitted to exclude the presentation of a litigants' defence. 8. The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized States is of supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. These principles are well settled. The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should appraise the party determinatively the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play. The concept has gained significance and shades with time. When the historic document was made at Runnymede in 1215, the first statutory recognition of this principle found its way into the "Magna Carta". The classic exposition of Sir Edward Coke of natural justice requires to "vocate, interrogate and adjudicate". In the celebrated case of Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works [(1863) 143 ER 414], the principle was thus stated: ‘Even God did not pass a sentence upon Adam, before he was called upon to make his defence. "Adam" says God, "where art thou? hast thou not eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat’.” 16. This Court has also noted that while the writ petition was moved on 02.03.2016, an interim order was passed which was until further orders. There is no dispute in the Bar that on the strength of the interim order, the petitioners are possessing the land in question. 17. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the impugned resolution dated 06.02.2016 is unsustainable in law and accordingly interfered with. 18. It is however made clear that the interference is primarily on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and the authorities would be at liberty to issue appropriate notice to the petitioners, if any verification exercise is Page No.# 8/8 required. 19. Writ petition accordingly stands allowed in the manner indicated above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant