The main legal point established is the requirement for due process in eviction procedures and the need for claimants to prove their status as forest dwelling scheduled tribes or traditional forest dwellers under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006.

JUDGMENT

Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. - Heard Mr. S Bora, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. J Chutia, learned standing counsel, KAAC as well as Mr. BJ Talukdar, learned counsel for the Revenue Department and Ms. M Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the Forest Department.

2. The petitioners herein claim themselves to be persons belonging to the Schedule Tribe (for short ST) Community and are aggrieved by the common notice dated 29.05.2019, where even, the name of the authority issuing the notice is not being mentioned. The purport of the notice is that all the encroachers who had already encroached various land "from FD Pillar No.3 to 15 near Rillain villageDimapur & Tengnanglangso near Indisen Village Dimapur in & around FD Pillar No.16-17 (Inside Forest Land of Doldoli RF, Karbi Anglong, Assam), so-called & self styled villages i.e. Disapur village, Raikom Aklam, Tingbangla Nepali Bosti, Notun Basti near Nowgaon Bosti Rangapahar, (Hiteswar Tulsiary Gaon) Alias 10 th Miles Langtibuk Boro Gaon and Dhoneshnala-Tenganala-KochubeelKhoyabosti-Nahorlangso I & II", are required to vacate their respective lands under their occupation within a period of 7(seven) days from the issuance of the notice. The notice further provides that on the failure of the persons to vacate the lands, in question, they would be ejected as per the power under Section 72(c) of the Assam Forest Regulation 1891(for short, Regulation of 1891). The notice states that the unlawful occupation of the forest land by the petitioners is a gross violation of Section 24 and Section 25 of the Regulation of 1891 and Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

3. The petitioners claim that as they belong to the ST community, therefore, they have a right under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (for short, Act of 2006) to occupy the forest land in question.

4. From the notice of 29.05.2019 and also from the stand taken by the petitioners that as they belong to the ST community, and, therefore they have a right under Act of 2006, the following questions arise for a determination; firstly whether the procedure adopted by the authorities requiring the petitioners to be evicted from the land they are occupying meets the requirement of a due procedure of law being followed; secondly, if the petitioners have a right under the Act of 2006 by virtue of being belonging to the ST community, whether the forest land under their occupation is required to be settled with them or in order to evaluate any such right under the Act of 2006, the required procedure under the law has to be followed.

5. As regards the first question for determination as to whether the required procedure under the law had been followed in requiring the petitioners to be evicted from their respective plots of land located in the forest areas, we have taken note of of that the impugned notice dated 29.05.2019 provides that the alleged encroachers would be ejected from their respective occupation of the forest land as per the powers conferred under Section 72(c) of the Regulation of 1891, in a situation where the authorities are of the view that the unlawful occupation of the forest land by the petitioners is a gross violation of Section 24 and Section 25 of the Regulation of 1891 and Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

6. Section 24 of the Regulation of 1891 pertains to penalties for trespass or damage in reserved forests and Section 25 pertains to the acts that are prohibited in such forests, whereas Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 provides for the restrictions on the dereservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purpose.

7. Apparently, the allegation against the petitioners is that they have done certain acts, which are causing damage to the reserved forest and such acts are prohibited in forest land and further it violates the restrictions that ar