IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Ratneswar Kalita And Ors – Appellants
Versus
The State Of Assam And Ors – Respondent
WP(C) 1767 of 2012, WP(C) 1746 of 2017
Decided on : 14-09-2023
Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 - Section 72(c), 25, 7 - Restriction on dereservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purpose – Held, Court that all Petitioners herein would be at liberty to apply for settlement/allotment of lands provided Petitioners satisfies eligibility criteria - Petitioner cannot claim settlement of lands under their occupation as they are occupying land within Reserve Forest for reasons already above mentioned in earlier part of instant judgment - Petitioner would be at liberty to claim settlement over their lands under their possession. It shall however be within discretion of State Government to grant settlement or not in such lands under occupation of Petitioner or grant settlement in such other lands as deemed fit taking into consideration Land Policy of 2019 - Writ petitions disposed off.
JUDGMENT :
1. Both the writ petitions are taken up for disposal vide the common judgment and order taking into account that the Petitioners in both the writ petitions are same and the issues arising out therein are interrelated.
2. The case of the 15 Petitioners in WP(C) 1767/2012 are that they claim that they have constructed their permanent as well as temporary houses in Dag Nos.459, 463, 589, 513, 526, 504, 468, 527, 528, 615, 544 and 548 respectively at Village-Dakhingaon (South Kalapahar) under Mouza-Beltola during the period from 1978 – 1985. The Petitioners claim that they have been living and enjoying their plots of land peacefully and paying the land revenue (Touzi Bahira) to the Revenue Authorities from time to time in respect of their land in occupation. It is further mentioned in the writ petition that the Petitioners’ houses were assessed by the Guwahati Municipal Corporation and granted holding numbers. The Petitioners are also enjoying electricity connection on the basis of No Objection Certificates issued by the Guwahati Municipal Corporation.
3. It is the further case of the Petitioners that the Respondent authorities especially the Respondent Forest Authorities tried to evict the Petitioners along with other persons from their respective plots of land by demolishing their houses with the help of elephant, bulldozers etc. in the year 2002. Under such circumstances, the Petitioners along with others approached this Court by filing writ petitions which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.5356/2002, WP(C) No.5206/2002, WP(C) No.5302/2002, WP(C) No.5567/2002 and WP(C) No.5207/2002. All these writ petitions were disposed off by the common judgment and order dated 15.06.2007 by this Court with a direction to the Respondents, particularly the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam to constitute an appropriate Committee consisting of officers from concerned department including the Forest and Revenue Departments to look into the matter and to suggest to the Government the actions to be taken to resolve the dispute. This Court further directed that the status quo as on 15.06.2007 in respect to the possession be maintained till a decision is taken by the Government.
4. It is the further case of the Petitioners that after 2 (two) years on 19.09.2009, the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam had issued a communication wherein it is seen that a Committee was constituted to submit its report within 2 (two) months on field verification of the records and field position of the land as per existing Rules and procedures of both Revenue and Environment & Forest Department. The said Committee comprised of
2. Divisional Forest Officer, Kamrup East Division
3. Settlement officer, Guwahati Re-Settlement Operation, Guwahati.
4. Circle Officer, Dispur
5. Representative of G.M.D.A.
5. It is the further case of the Petitioners that no steps were taken by the said Committee so constituted pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 15.06.2007 but on the other hand the Forest Officials/the Personnel of the Establishment of the Respondent No.7 initiated certain steps for evicting the Petitioners for which the Petitioners approached this Court by filing a writ petition which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.1767/2012. It is however relevant to mention that the pleadings of WP(C) No.1767/2012 are completely silent as to when such steps were taken by the Respondent Forest Department. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of the reliefs sought for in the said writ petition. It was the prayer of the Petitioners that a direction should be issued to the Respondent Authorities not to evict the Petitioners from their respective plot of lands under their possession as well as also a direction be issued to the Respondents not to evict the Petitioners from the aforesaid plots of land without fully complying with the order dated 15.06.2007 passed by this Court.
6. The records reveals that
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioners did not have the right to be settled on the Ceiling Surplus land as they did not fulfill the conditions of landless cultivator....
State must ensure procedural fairness in eviction while engaging in individualized assessments for rehabilitation claims under applicable land policies.
Eviction notices under Rule 18 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations must afford petitioners an opportunity to demonstrate bona fide claims of right, adhering to principles of natural justice.
An application for government land settlement confers no vested right. Administrative authorities may consider subsequent material facts, such as the acquisition of private land, to determine eligibi....
The court upheld the eviction of unauthorized occupants from government land reserved for a public hospital but mandated a reassessment of rehabilitation claims for eligible indigenous and landless i....
The court ruled that eviction without a hearing violates the principles of natural justice and Article 21 of the Constitution.
Point of Law : Amended provisions of Rule 18 (2) of the Settlement Rules does not mandate issuance of any notice upon persons coming in the ambit of the said sub-rule. The petitioner are admittedly i....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.