IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Kokrajhar Chirang Mauriya Relief Committee and Another – Petitioners
Versus
The Union of India and Others – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 5086 of 2015
Decided On : 01-02-2024
Land Allotment - Rehabilitation of Erosion Affected Families - Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, Land Policy, 2019 - Clause 1.7, Settlement Rules
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition was filed by a society representing families affected by land erosion seeking fresh land allotment and rehabilitation grant. The court directed individual applications for land allotment as per the Land Policy, 2019 and a rehabilitation package if lands are not available.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the affected families were entitled to apply for land allotment under the Land Policy, 2019 and directed the authorities to consider their applications within 8 months. It also noted the unavailability of lands and directed the authorities to consider a rehabilitation package for the affected families if lands cannot be allotted.
Issues: Land Allotment, Rehabilitation Grant, Entitlement of Erosion Affected Families
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the affected families were entitled to apply for land allotment under the Land Policy, 2019 and directed the authorities to consider their applications within 8 months. It also directed the authorities to consider a rehabilitation package for the affected families if lands cannot be allotted.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition with directions for individual applications for land allotment and consideration of a rehabilitation package if lands are not available.
JUDGMENT :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
1. The instant writ petition has been filed by a registered society espousing the cause of 4285 families who were allotted lands by the Government but such lands which were allotted have been eroded by floods caused by the river Sarabhanga, Aie, Champa (Bhur), Kumguri and such have sought for fresh allotment and/or further seeking a rehabilitation of Rs.50,000/- per victim family of the Petitioners for the purpose of purchase of land/construction of houses as the similarly situated victim families already received the same.
2. From a perusal of the writ petition, it reveals that the Petitioners themselves admitted that they were allotted lands however such lands have been eroded in view of the river changing its course. Therefore, these Petitioners would come within the ambit of Clause 1.7 of the Land Policy, 2019. However, for the grant of settlement, the members of the Petitioner association would be required to apply individually in terms with the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 as well as the Land Policy of 2019. It is the opinion of this Court that if the members of the Petitioner association are erosion affected persons, they would be entitled to make necessary application as per the provisions of law as above stated and upon making such applications, the Respondent Authorities are also required to consider the same in view of its Land Policy, 2019.
3. Accordingly, this Court grants liberty to the members of the Petitioner association to respectively apply before the Secretary, Land Revenue & DM Department, Bodoland Territorial Council for allotment of land in terms with Land Policy, 2019 and upon application, the said authorities shall duly decide the entitlement of the respective applicant who are the members of the Petitioner association in terms with the Land Policy, 2019 within a period of 8 months from the date of such applications, if so filed. The respective members of the Petitioner association who were earlier allotted shall file their respective applications for seeking allotment along with the credentials that they were earlier allotted.
4. The above therefore takes care of the first relief so sought for in the writ petition. As regards the second relief which have been sought for i.e. for a direction to pay a rehabilitation grant of Rs.50,000/- per victim family of the Petitioners, this Court finds it very pertinent to take note of the affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 2 wherein it has been mentioned that in case of families affected in 1996 and 1998 violence, the Government prepared a 4 (four) phase Action Plan. The various phases have been mentioned in a tabulated form which are quoted herein under:
| Phase I | Families from Revenue Villages and Forest Villages, which could go back to the Revenue and recognized Forest Villages without security or with the existing security arrangements and the forest encroachers who could purchase patta land in Kokrajhar and neighbouring districts on their own were included in this phase. |
| Phase II | Families from recognized Forest Villages who could go back after provision of minimum security were included in this phase. |
| Phase III | Families from isolated Forest Village in the northern part of the district who could go back after provision of additional security were included in this phase. |
| Phase IV | Forest encroacher families and families who had no land to go back and who required arrangement of land in neighbouring and other districts were included in this phase. |
5. It was mentioned in the said affidavit-in-opposition that the people who were in Phase-I, II, III were rehabilitated. However, as regards the people who were in phase IV for whom land had to be arranged, they continued to live in the relief camps. The Government in spite of great difficulties could not rehabilitate these families and under such circumstances, the maintenance of the
The court ruled that eviction without a hearing violates the principles of natural justice and Article 21 of the Constitution.
State must ensure procedural fairness in eviction while engaging in individualized assessments for rehabilitation claims under applicable land policies.
Authorities are obligated to complete rehabilitation of displaced individuals under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, reflecting the right to livelihood and pro....
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 State has a duty to provide timely rehabilitation and fair compensation to project-affected persons, 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....
Eviction from government land requires valid documentation of allotment; without substantiation, the claimants have no legal basis for remaining in possession.
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.