Eviction from Village Grazing Reserve land is impermissible under law, and claims of discrimination based on negative equality are not valid.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

The approach to this Court by this application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is against a notice dated 19.07.2016 by which, the petitioner has been sought to be evicted from the land which is under his possession.

2. As per the facts projected, the petitioner is a Small Tea Grower and is registered under the Tea Board. It has been stated that 40 bighas of myadi patta land was utilized and he had opened a small tea garden in the year 2004-05. Thereafter, the petitioner had purchased the possessory rights from the earlier occupiers of around 11 bighas of land and had extended the tea garden. It is the specific case of the petitioner that at that time, he was not aware of the fact that the land which he had purchased in the year 2007-08 was Village Grazing Reserve (VGR) land. Be that as it may, the petitioner has relied upon the policy of the Government to settle lands in favour of Small Tea Grower and the contention advanced is that under such a policy existing, the impugned decision to evict is unreasonable and arbitrary.

3. I have heard Shri S Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri D Nath, learned Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam.

4. Shri Borthakur, learned counsel has submitted that at the time of purchase of the 11 bighas of land, the petitioner was not aware of the status of the land that it was VGR land. He has submitted that similar lands are also under the possession of other persons against whom, no action has been taken. He has categorically contended that the petitioner has been targeted and there is lack of bona fide in issuance of the impugned notice dated 19.07.2016. He has relied upon the policy of the Government to allot lands to Small Tea Growers and in this regard, he has placed before this Court a communication dated 23.09.1994 of the Revenue Department whereby, the premiums were fixed for such settlement. He has submitted that though in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in respect of VGR land, he may not have an indefeasible right, considering the policy of the Government to give incentive to the Small Tea Growers, it would be the appropriate to the Government to revoke the notice dated 19.07.2016 and take steps for settlement of the land in question by de-reserving the same.

5. Per contra, Shri Nath, learned State Counsel has submitted that there is no dispute that the land in question is VGR land where de-reservation is not permissible. By drawing the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 22.05.2025, the learned State Counsel has submitted that steps have been taken to clear the VGR land and in this regard, he has drawn the attention of this Court to the averments made in paragraph 6 thereof. The learned State Counsel has relied upon the landmark judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., reported in (2011) 11 SCC 396 and the guidelines/observations made in paragraph 23 have been pressed into service.

6. With regard to the issue as to whether there would be a requirement of notice under Regulation 18(2) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, the State Counsel has submitted that there would be no such requirement which has been clarified by the Division Bench in the case of Salak Uddin Vs. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2024 (4) GLT 859

7. On the aspect that certain persons are still occupying VGR land and the notice has been issued only to the petitioner, the learned State Counsel has submitted that pleadings in this regard are vague in the writ petition and in an