JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Manas Barman, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners. I have also heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam, assisted by Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Assam, appearing for the respondents.

2. The writ petitioners herein, numbering 15 in total, have jointly approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition seeking protection from the proposed move to evict them from the plots of land under their occupation on the basis of oral instructions issued by the Circle Officer of Naharkatia Revenue Circle.

3. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the writ petitioners herein claim to be the residents of Na-gaon Hojuwa Pathar, Naharkatia in the district of Dibrugarh. As per the case projected through the pleadings, the petitioners are in occupation of land covered by sarkari dags. Some of the writ petitioners have also constructed dwelling houses over the land under their occupation with the assistance of grants provided under the “Prima Minister’s Awas Yojana – Gramin” (PMAY-G). While the writ petitioners were occupying the aforesaid plots of sarkari land, the Circle Officer, Naharkatia Revenue Circle, (who is not a party to the writ petition) had allegedly issued oral instructions to the petitioners to vacate the land within two days as the land is required for some public project. As per the statement made in the writ petition, the Circle Officer had also assured the writ petitioners to provide them with alternative housing in a neighbourhood.

4. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.2 i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh, Assam, refuting the allegations made in the writ petition. As per the projection made in the counter affidavit, the petitioners are encroachers of land covered by Govt. Dag Nos. 44, 55 and 56, situated at Na-Gaon, Hajuwa Pathar village. Although, they were offered alternative land, yet, only 6(six) petitioners have submitted copies of relevant documents including the copies of Aadhar card and voter ID and the rest of them are yet to submit any documentary evidence in support of their claim. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that a proposal has already been sent to the sub-Divisional Land Advisory Committee (SDLAC) for allotment of land in favour of the writ petitioners, which proposal has also been approved in the meeting of the SDLAC held on 26/09/2022. It has further been stated that the land in question is required for the purpose of construction of a Mini Stadium at Na-Gaon Rajohuwa Khel Pathar, Naharkatia, for which, a construction contract has already been awarded to M/s. Ganapati Construction Company, Guwahati.

5. Mr. M. Barman, learned counsel for the writ petitioners has argued that his clients belonged to the economically vulnerable section of the society and are surviving with the meager income generated by them. Mr. Barman has further argued that his clients do not intend to obstruct any infrastructure development project meant for the public but in the present case, since the petitioners have been sought to be evicted without serving any prior notice and also without providing them any alternative land, hence, the action initiated by the Circle Officer, Naharkatia Revenue Circle is per se illegal and as such, liable to be set aside by this Court. Mr. Barman has further argued that the Circle Officer, Naharkatia does not have the jurisdiction to evict illegal encroachers of ‘sarkari land’.

6. In response, Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam, has argued that the land occupied by the writ petitioners is required for the purpose of construction of the “Mini Stadium” at Naharkatia since the same forms part of the contiguous land, which would be necessary for setting up the infrastructure. Mr. Saikia has further submitted that all the writ petitioners have already been offered allotment of “sarkari land” in their names in the adjoini