Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010207212016 2026:GAU-AS:9675 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5682/2016 PATARKUCHI VILLAGE DEFENCE PARTY and ANR REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, VILL. PATARKUCHI, P.O. and P.S. BASISTHA, DIST. KAMRUPM, ASSAM. 2: SRI DILIP KUMAR BHATTACHARYA THE PRESIDENT OF PATARKUCHI VILLAGE DEFENCE PARTY VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPTT. OF REVENUE SETTLEMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006. 2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KAMRUPM GUWAHATI - 781001. 3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER DISPUR REVENUE CIRCLE BASISTHA CHARIALI GUWAHATI-781028. 4:SHRI GHANAKANTA KALITA S/O. LATE DHAIRJYARAM KALITA R/O. RIVER RESOURCES COLONY BELTOLA GUWAHATI-08. 5:SHRI KAVYA KANTA GOGOI S/O. LATE UMA KANTA GOGOI R/O. SOURAV NAGAR BELTOLA GUWAHATI-28. Page No.# 2/7 6:SMTI. INDRANI GOGOI W/O. SHRI KAVYA KANTA GOGOI R/O. SOURAV NAGAR BELTOLA GUWAHATI-28 7:SHRI BIDYADHAR KUMBHAKAR S/O. UNKNOWN R/O. PATARKUCHI BASISTHA GUWAHATI-28. 8:SMTI. INDRA DEVI KUMBHAKAR W/O. SHRI BIDYADHAR KUMBHAKAR R/O. PATARKUCHI BASISTHA GUWAHATI-28 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. D. Devi, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. H.K. Hazarika, Jr. Govt. Advocate Mr. A.K. Sarma, Advocate Ms. P.R. Mahanta, Standing Counsel · Date on which Judgment was reserved : N/A · Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 15.07.2026 · Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative Part of the Judgment : No · Whether the full Judgment has been Pronounced : Yes JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Page No.# 3/7 Heard Ms. D. Devi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Ms. P.R. Mahanta, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 1; Mr. H.K. Hazarika, the learned Junior Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3; and Mr. A.K. Sarma, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4 to 8. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the notice of eviction bearing No. Dis-47/2016-17/5084 which was received by the petitioner No. 2 on 14.09.2016 in connection with Eviction Case No. 04/16-17. 3. It is the specific case of the petitioners that recommendations had already been made for allotment of 1 Katha 1 Lecha of land out of Government Dag No. 1183 of Village Maidam, Beltola Mouza, in favour of the petitioner No. 1 and, therefore, the notice of eviction ought not to have been issued against the petitioner No. 2. 4. This Court takes note of that the notice of eviction pertains to an area admeasuring 2.68 Ares covered by Government Dag No. 1461 situated at No. 2, Maidamgaon under Beltola Mouza. It is the specific case of the petitioners that Dag No. 1461 forms part of Page No.# 4/7 Dag No. 1183, which was proposed to be settled in their favour. 5. This Court has also taken note of the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 3 wherein it has been categorically mentioned that out of Dag No. 1183, a new Dag, being Dag No. 1719, has been created. Insofar as Dag No. 1461 is concerned, the same has been created out of old Dag No. 912. 6. During the course of hearing, Mr. H.K. Hazarika, the learned Junior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has placed before this Court a trace map issued by the respondent No. 3, from which it is also apparent that Dag No. 1461 of No. 2, Maidamgaon under Beltola Mouza is different from Dag No. 1719. 7. This Court further takes note of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 4 to 8, wherein it has been stated inter alia that Dag No. 1461 is a road linking to the houses of the private respondents and that the petitioners have been illegally occupying a portion of the said road. 8. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record, including the trace map, which is kept on record and marked with the letter "X". Page No.# 5/7 9. The claim of the petitioners for settlement pertains to a plot of land admeasuring 1 Katha 1 Lechas covered by Dag No. 1183, as would be apparent from the various communications issued by the Land Advisory Committee as well as the Deputy Commissioner. However, from the materials on record, it is seen that old Dag No. 1183 has been renumbered as Dag No. 1719 in the recent settlement operation. On the other hand, Dag No. 1461, in respect of which the impugned notice has been issued, is not a part of old Dag No. 1183. 10. This Court also finds it relevant to take note of that although proposals for settlement of land in favour of petitioner No. 1 were submitted as far back as in the year 2015, but till date, no material has been placed before this Court to show that such land has been settled in favour of the petitioner No. 1. 11. At this stage, this Court finds it relevant to take note of Clause 14.3 of the Assam Land Policy, 2019, which categorically mandates that there is no right upon an encroacher to be settled with the land merely on the ground that the person concerned is in occupation of such land, irrespective of the period of such occupation or encroachment. Under such circumstances, this Court does not find that the petitioners have been able to establish any Page No.# 6/7 conceivable right to challenge the eviction notice impugned the instant proceedings. 12. This Court also takes note of the judgment of the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Md. Salak Uddin Vs. State of Assam & Others reported in (2024) SCC OnLine Gau 921 wherein it has been held that a person in occupation of Government land has a right to show that the person has a bona fide claim of right over the land in question. 13. Under such circumstances, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i) The eviction notice impugned in the instant proceedings shall be considered as a notice issued to the petitioners under Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules of Assam Land and Revenue Regulation,1886. (ii) The petitioners are granted 15 (fifteen) days' time from today to submit their reply to the respondent No. 3 showing that the petitioners have a bona fide claim of right involved over the land under their occupation. (iii) Depending upon such decision so taken by the Page No.# 7/7 respondent No. 3, who is the Circle Officer, Dispur Revenue Circle, further steps may be taken in accordance with law. 14. No costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Digitally signed by Satyam Sharma Date: 2026.07.16 03:45:34 +05'30'