Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010119262026 2026:GAU-AS:8664 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3167/2026 HAMIDA KHATUN AND ANR D/O LATE MANSER ALI, W/O NURUL ISLAM, VILL- ULUBARI (BIRUBARI), DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR NAGAR, MOUZA- ULUBARI, P.S.- PALTAN BAZAR, DISTRICT KAMRUP (M), ASSAM. 2: FIROZA BEGUM D/O LATE MANSUB ALI W/O NURUL ISLAM R/O VILL- ULUBARI (BIRUBARI) DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR NAGAR MOUZA- ULUBARI P.S.- PALTAN BAZAR DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006. 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KAMRUP (M) HENGRABARI GUWAHATI-781039 ASSAM. 3:THE CO DISTRICT COMMISSIONER HENGRABARI GUWAHATI-781039 ASSAM 4:THE SUBDIVISIONAL OFFICER (S) Page No.# 2/6 I/C LAND SETTLEMENT BRANCH KAMRUP METROPOLITAN BRANCH HENGRABARI GUWAHATI - 781007 5:THE CIRCLE OFFICER GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE ULUBARI DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN-781007 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, P. GHOSH,MR. SAYED SALIM AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, REVENUE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 16-06-2026 Heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S.S. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for the respondent no. 1; and Mr. S.R. Baruah, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 2 – 5. 2. The two petitioners have approached this Court stating that they are in occupation of two plots of land, each measuring 1 Katha 5 Lessas, since the time they executed agreement with the erstwhile possessors of the said two plot of lands in the year 1992 and since then, they are in continuous occupation of the said two plots of land, which are under Dag no. 12[O]/97[N] at Village – Ulubari, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Mouza - Ulubari, Guwahati Revenue Circle, Kamrup [M] [‘the subject-plots’, for short]. Page No.# 3/6 2.1. The petitioners have stated that they submitted applications for settlement of the subject-plots in their favour as per the Land Policy, 2019 and had also preferred a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 962/2020 along with 18 others. The writ petition was disposed of by a Judgment dated 28.05.2020 directing the respondent no. 2 to give consideration to the applications of the petitioners within a period of 6 months in terms of the provisions of the Land Policy, 2019, more particularly, Clause 14.2 and Clause 14.4. 2.2. Thereafter, the applications of the petitioners were processed by the State respondents. The petitioners have stated that it was reported to the Government in the Revenue and Disaster Management Department by the respondent no. 4 vide an Office Letter dated 17.03.2022 that proposals of settlement of the subject-plots in favour of the petitioners were placed by the Sub-Divisional Land Advisory Committee on 11.12.2020. In a Report dated 17.12.2021 submitted by the Revenue Staff, it was mentioned that the subject- plots were outside the boundary wall of the T.B. Hospital. 2.3. Subsequently, when another set of notices were served upon the petitioners terming them as land encroachers, the petitioners approached this Court by two writ petitions, W.P.[C] no. 7983/2022 and W.P.[C] no. 7384/2022. The said writ petitions were taken up for consideration along with a batch of other writ petitions and were disposed of by a common Judgment and Order dated 07.11.2024. 2.4. The relevant portions of the Judgment and Order dated 07.11.2024 reads Page No.# 4/6 as under :- 50. Accordingly, this Court therefore, disposes of the instant batch of these writ petitions with the following observations and directions: [i] The impugned notices under Rule 18 so issued to the petitioners to vacate shall be construed as notices issued by the Circle Officer, Guwahati Revenue Circle, to show cause why the petitioners should not be evicted by taking recourse to Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules. [ii] The petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions are given the liberty to submit individual replies and substantiating the same with documents and such evidence as deemed proper thereby showing cause that the petitioners have a bona fide claim of right involved in respect to the land under their occupation and as such the recourse to Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules is not permissible. [iii] The liberty given above is to be exercised within 30 [thirty] days, from the date of the instant order. In the said replies, the petitioners herein shall indicate in which writ petition, the petitioner[s] were parties. [iv] The Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup [M] is directed to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners either personally or through their authorized representative[s]. The Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup [M] shall thereupon pass appropriate speaking orders. The Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup [M] is further directed to allot a particular area in his office wherein, such replies could be submitted. A notice be hanged in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup [M] indicating the area. [v] This Court further directs that upon the speaking orders being passed, the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup [Metro] shall notify in its notice board about the fact that the Page No.# 5/6 speaking order had been passed. For a period of 30 [thirty] days from such notification, no coercive measures be taken so that if the petitioners are aggrieved, they may avail remedies as permissible under law. 3. In terms of the said Judgment and Order, the petitioners submitted two applications on 06.12.2024 projecting that they had a bona fide claim for settlement of the subject-plots in their favour. 4. In this writ petition, the petitioners have canvassed that without passing any speaking orders on the applications submitted on 06.06.2026 by the petitioners, the respondent authorities have affixed a notice in front of the subject-plots with the caption ‘This property belongs to Prajyotishpur Medical College & Hospital Authority. Trespassers will be prosecuted’. 5. Mr. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department has submitted that speaking orders in terms of the direction made by this Court in the Judgment and Order dated 07.11.2024, have been passed on 12.06.2026. He has submitted that thought the Speaking Orders have been passed belatedly, but the issue regarding the claim of the petitioners for settlement of the subject- plots have been decided by the competent authority. The Speaking Orders are not assailed. 6. Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the Speaking Orders have been passed after filing of the present writ petition and they have not yet been communicated to the petitioners. 7. This Court is of the considered view that as speaking orders have been Page No.# 6/6 already passed on 12.06.2026, the petitioners’ claim regarding settlement of the subject-plots can be examined once the Legality and Validity of the Speaking Orders are assailed by bringing them on record. 8. As the Speaking Orders are not assailed in this writ petition, this Court is of the considered view that this writ petition is to be closed, reserving liberty to the petitioners to assail the Speaking Order dated 12.06.2026 before the appropriate forum as permissible under the law. 9. Mr. Borpujari has undertaken to furnish the copies of the Speaking Orders, dated 12.06.2026, physically as well as in soft form during the course of the day. 10. As the Speaking Orders are to be communicated to Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners today, the respondent authorities shall not take any coercive measures against the petitioners for a period of 30 days from today. It is further observed that as the petitioners are in occupation of the subject-plots for a period of time, there shall not be any obstruction for ingress and egress of the petitioners and their family members to and from the subject-plots for a period of 30 days from today. 11. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid terms. JUDGE Comparing Assistant