Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010120192026 2026:GAU-AS:9105 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3168/2026 DIMPU SAIKIA S/O LT. NIPEN SAIKIA, R/O WARD NO 2, P.O.- KHELMATI, DIST.- LAKHIMPUR, 787031, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, LAND AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GHY 6 2:THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (ADMINISTRATION) GHY 6 3:DISTRICT COMMISSIONER LAKHIMPUR ASSAM 787001 4:CIRCLE OFFICER NORTH LAKHIMPUR REVENUE CIRCLE NORTH LAKHIMPUR ASSAM 787001 5:PRESIDENT/ CHAIRMAN NORTH LAKHIMPUR MUNICIPALITY BOARD 787001 6:SUB DISTRICT COMMISSIONER/ EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE LAKHIMPUR 78700 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR MINTU SAIKIA, MS R DUTTA,MS. B DAS Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, REVENUE Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY JUDGMENT & ORDER [ORAL] 23.06.2026 Heard Mr. M. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. A. Bhattacharya, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for the respondent no. 1; and Mr. H. Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 2, 3, 4 & 6. 2. Let notice be issued. As sought for by the learned counsel for the parties on the premise that they have all the necessary instructions for giving consideration to the writ petition finally, the notice is made returnable forthwith and accordingly, the writ petition is taken up for disposal. 3. The petitioner has been served with a notice dated 06.06.2026 by the respondent no. 4 whereby it has been conveyed that from a report of the concerned Lat Mandal, it has been learnt that the petitioner has constructed a shop unauthorizedly on a plot of land located in Mouza – Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur Revenue Circle which plot of land is reserved for National Highway [NH] 15. By the impugned Notice, the petitioner has been asked to remove the shop allegedly constructed by him on such plot of land or else, he would be forcibly evicted as per the provisions of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the family of the petitioner since the time of his father, is in occupation of a plot of land measuring 2 Lessas, covered by Touji Patta no. 31 & Dag no. 625, at North Lakhimpur Sahar of Part-4, North Lakhimpur Revenue Circle, District - North Lakhimpur since more than 33 years. It is stated that the possession of the plot of land was taken over by the petitioner’s father after executing a possessory note with the erstwhile possessor and thereafter, the family of the petitioner has been depositing Touji Bahira revenue regularly assessed for the plot of land. After the demise of the petitioners’ father on 10.02.2020, the petitioner is in possession of the plot of land. With the projection that the plot of land is located at a distance of 50 metres away from the nearest National Highway, Page No.# 3/5 the petitioner has contended that the plot of land cannot be reserved for NH-15. Moreover, the impugned notice has been issued in clear violation of the procedure prescribed by law. 5. The petitioner has stated that the impugned notice dated 06.06.2026 has been issued by the respondent no. 4 at the instance of the respondent no. 5 who had issued a notice earlier on 08.08.2024 to the petitioner to vacate the plot of land within a period of three days from the date of receipt of the said notice. 6. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department has submitted that as per instruction received by him vide an Office Letter no. NLC.21/High Court/2025/806 dated 19.06.2026 from the respondent no. 4, the land covered by Touji Patta no. 31 & Dag no. 625 is under possession of the Assam State Transport Corporation. Further, on spot verification and as per revenue records, it is ascertained that the plot of land, which is stated to be under the occupation of the petitioner, falls under Dag no. 602 and said plot of land is classified as NH-15 reserved land. Therefore, the plot of land is not under Dag no. 625 as claimed by the petitioner. Moreover, the plot of land is not at a distance of 50 metres from the National Highway. Rather, it is within only 50 feet away from the National Highway. It is further submitted by him that the family of the petitioner is continuously paying only Bedakhali Jarimoma [Encroachment Penalty] and the same does not confer any right, title and interest on the petitioner over the plot of land. 7. It is true that payment of Touji Bahira [Encroachment Penalty] does not confer any right, title and interest on a Government plot of land. As per Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, only after written permission from the jurisdictional District Commissioner or after acquiring status of proprietor land-owner, settlement holder can enter into a Government plot of land. As admittedly the plot of land which is under occupation of the petitioner, is a Government land reserved for NH-15. If the petitioner is found to be unauthorized occupant of any Government land and if any eviction process is to be initiated for eviction of the petitioner, then the same shall be initiated as per the procedure prescribed in Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. Page No.# 4/5 8. Rule 18[1] and Rule 18[2] of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, 1886 read as under :- 18[1] Subject as hereinafter provided, the Deputy Commissioner may eject any person from land over which no person has acquired the rights of a proprietor, landholder, or settlement-holder. 18[2] When such person has entered into possession of Government khas land, or Waste land or estate over which no person has acquired the rights of a proprietor, land-holder or settlement-holder or any land that has previously been reserved roads or roadside land or for the grazing of village cattle or for other public purposes, or has entered into possession of land from which he has been excluded by general or special orders and when further, there is no bonafide claim of right involved he may be ejected or ordered to vacate the land forthwith, and the Deputy Commissioner may sell, confiscate or destroy any crop raised, or any building or other construction erected without authority on the land. 9. A Division Bench of this Court in Salak Uddin [Md.] vs. State of Assam and others, 2024 [4] GLT 857 while considering Rule 18[2] of the Settlement Rules, has inter alia observed that in respect to the waste land/Government khas land/estate, etc. over which no person has acquired the rights of a proprietor, land holder or settlement holder; an indigenous person who is in occupation of such lands under the disposal of the Government would have a procedural legitimate expectation and before taking any decision to evict him, he would be given an opportunity to explain that he had a right to be considered for settlement over the land in his occupation. This right is, however, subject to a caveat that the occupier/possessor submits application for settlement and the Settlement Rules and Land Policy permits such consideration for settlement. The said person would also have a substantive legitimate expectation that he ought to be considered for settlement over the land in his possession in view of the Land Policy, 2019. This is again subject to filing an application for settlement and the Land Policy, 2019 duly permitting consideration of such application for settlement. It may be that the State may have a more profound reason for Page No.# 5/5 eviction in respect of the land in possession in public interest. On Rule 18[2] of the Settlement Rules, the Division Bench has proceeded to hold that prior to initiation of proceedings under Rule 18[2] of the Settlement Rules, an occupant/possessor of Government lands has to be issued a notice. 10. When in the light of the prescriptions laid down in Rule 18[2] of the Settlement Rules, quoted above, and the observations and directions made in Salak Uddin [supra] of the Division Bench the impugned notice is looked at, it is evidently clear that the impugned notice falls short of the requirement for the fact that the impugned notice though purportedly issued under Rule 18[2] of the Settlement Rules is an eviction notice without providing for an opportunity to the noticee/petitioner to explain that he has right to be considered for settlement over the Government land in view of his alleged long occupation and only seven days to vacate has been given. In such view of the matter, the impugned Notice dated 06.06.2026 issued by the respondent no. 4 is set aside and quashed. 11. It is made clear that setting aside and quashing of the impugned notice herein shall not preclude the competent authority to proceed again against the petitioner in accordance with law by providing a due opportunity of being heard to him, who is allegedly found in unauthorized occupation of the Government land reserved for National Highway. 12. This order disposes of the writ petition. No cost. 13. The instructions placed by Mr. Bhattacharya are to be kept with the case record by marking it as Document - ‘X’. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Digitally signed by Rupam Basumatary Date: 2026.06.25 09:58:56 +05'30'