Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010099032026 2026:GAU-AS:9199 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C)/880/2017 SMTI. PANJALI DEURI @ SMT. PADUMI DEURI and 2 ORS W/O LT. BORGORAM DEURI 2: SRI SARBANARAYAN KRISHNA DEURI 3: SRI PUNENDRA KUMAR DEURI BOTH S/O LT. BORGORAM DEURI ALL ARE R/O VILL- PATORKUCHI NO. 2 MAIDAMGAON P.O. BASISTHA DIST. KAMRUP METRO GUWAHATI. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS THROUGH THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KAMRUP METRO GUWAHATI ASSAM 3:THE ADDL. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER REVENUE and LAND SETTLEMENT KAMRUP M GUWAHATI. 4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER Page No.# 2/3 DISPUR REVENUE CIRCLE DISPUR GUWAHATI ASSAM. 5:BRIHATTAR PATORKUCHI UNNAYAN SAMITEE THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT/SECRETARY AT VILL- PATORKUCHI NO.2 MAIDAMGAON P.O. BASISTHA DIST. KAMRUP METRO GUWAHATI 6:SRI GOPAL RAJBONGSHI S/O LT. THANESWAR RAJBONGSHI VILL- PATORKUCHI NO. 2 MAIDAMGAON P.O. BASISTHA DIST. KAMRUP METRO GUWAHATI. ------------ Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. SA Bakhtiar Advocate for the respondent(s): Ms. PR Mahanta for respondent No.1 Mr. HK Hazarika, Junior Govt. Advocate Mr. S Deka for respondent No.6. B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 22.06.2026 Heard Mr. SA Bakhtiar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioners challenging the Notice dated 17.01.2017 whereby the petitioner No.1 has been asked to vacate the Government land covered by Dag No.1563 within 3(three) days of Page No.# 3/3 receipt of the notice, else it was also mentioned that the petitioner would be evicted under Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 (for short, the ‘Regulations of 1886’) 3. The learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Md. Salak Uddin Vs. State of Assam and Others reported in (2024) SCC Online Gau 921 categorically held that in order to proceed under Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules framed under the Regulations of 1886, it is the requirement of law that there has to be a notice, thereby giving an opportunity to the noticee to reply and place due materials that the noticee has a bona fide claim over the land under his occupation. It is also trite that in pursuance to the notice, there would be a requirement of passing a speaking order and if the speaking order has been passed against the noticee, a further period of 30(thirty) days has to be granted to the noticee for eviction. 4. Considering that the notice dated 17.01.2017 do not meet the aforementioned criteria as well as the settled principles of law, it is the opinion of this Court that the Notice dated 17.01.2017 cannot be sustained in law, for which, the impugned Notice dated 17.01.2017 is set aside and quashed. 5. This Court, however, observes that the quashing of the Notice dated 17.01.2017 shall not preclude or prejudice the respondent authorities to take steps for eviction of the petitioners by following the due process of law and further taking into account the observations made hereinabove. 6. With the above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant