Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Gau) 1565

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KARDAK ETE, J.
Jawahar Purbey, Son Of Rambleswar Purbey – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam And 3 Ors. – Respondents
WP(C)1439 of 2025, WP(C) 1533 of 2025, WP(C) 2146 of 2025, WP(C) 1502 of 2025
Decided on : 16.09.2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: MR. T DEURI, MR. M J BHATTACHARYYA,MS A DAS,MS. L WANGSA
For the Respondent: GA, ASSAM, SC, REVENUE

Indigenous landless persons are not automatically entitled to settlement of government land; eligibility must align with statutory provisions and policies.

Headnote:(A) Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 - Section 12 - Land Policy-2019 - Eviction of unauthorized occupants - Petitioners claim entitlement to settlement on government land due to long-term occupation and indigenous status. Court affirmed that mere occupation does not guarantee settlement if conditions are not met as per land policies and regulations. (Paras 7, 20, 26)

(B) Right to shelter - The court recognized the fundamental nature of the right to shelter but maintained that rights must be substantiated by eligibility under applicable laws. (Paras 10, 23)

(C) Judicial review - The State has the obligation to ensure orderly disposal and management of public lands to uphold developmental plans. (Paras 24, 29)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, claiming indigenous status and long-term occupation of government land for housing, contested eviction notices. They sought settlement of land under their possession, alleging illness and delayed applications led to missed deadlines.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioners’ failure to comply with stipulated timelines invalidated their claims but directed authorities to consider their applications under relevant land policies.

Issues: The main issues addressed included the eligibility for land settlement as indigenous persons and the validity of eviction notices.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that indigenous status and long occupation do not confer automatic rights to land; due process must be followed as defined by the governing regulations and policies.

Result: Writ petitions disposed, with a direction for consideration of applications within two months.

JUDGMENT :

KARDAK ETE, J.

Heard Mr. T. Deori, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) 1439/2025 and WP(C)2146/2025 and Mr. R. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C)1502/2025 and WP(C)1533/2025. Also heard Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for the respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. S. R. Baruah, learned State Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4.

2. Challenge made in these writ petitions is to the Notices dated 05.03.2025 issued by the Circle Officer, Guwahati Revenue Circle, Guwahati, whereby, the petitioners have been directed to remove their illegal encroachment by providing a grace period to vacate on 6th and 7th of March, 2025 in continuation with the previous notices based on the order dated 07.11.2024, passed in WP(C)3715/2020 and other batch of writ petitions.

3. Having considered that issues involved in these writ petitions are similar on facts and law, same are heard and disposed by this common judgment and order.

4. Briefly put, the cases are that the petitioners claim to be the permanent residents of village Ulubari (Birubari), Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Nagar, Mouza-Ulubari, in the District of Kamrup (M), Assam and landless persons are in occupation of a small portion of land measuring 7.5, 10, 10 & 11 Lessas each covered by Dag No. 12 (0)/97(N) and have been residing on the said plots by constructing Assam type dwelling houses since 25 to 35 years. The petitioners had submitted applications on many occasions for settlement of the said land in their favour. The petitioners also claim that they have paid land revenue and GMC tax as well as electricity charges.

5. The petitioners had approached this Court against the Eviction Notices dated 07.01.2020 and 10.11.2022 by way of writ petitions, which was disposed of on 07.11.2024 by this Court along with other similar batch of writ petitions, wherein, the petitioners were given a liberty to submit individual replies substantiating with documents by showing cause that the petitioners have a bona fide claim of rights in respect of the land under their occupation, within a period of 30 (thirty) days.

6. The petitioners could not file their applications as allowed by this Court on the ground, inter alia, that they were suffering from certain illnesses. However, it is contended, that after the expiry of 30 (thirty) days period, they have submitted their respective representations on 11.02.2025 detailing their entitlement to be settled with the land under their possession. The respondent authorities issued the impugned Notices dated 05.03.2025, whereby, referring to the earlier notices, directed the petitioners to vacate the land by 6th and 7th of March, 2025, failing which eviction proceedings were to be carried out. Hence, these present writ petitions.

7. Mr. T. Deori and Mr. R. Dhar, learned counsels for the petitioners, submit that the petitioners are indigenous persons, who have to reside in the city of Guwahati for their livelihood and are not able to purchase any land. They have submitted that since the petitioners are in occupation of their respective plots of land over the Government land being Dag No. 12 (0)/97(N) and being the indigenous, have the right to be settled with the land in terms of the Land Policy-2019 and their rights are traceable under Section 12 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 (hereinafter referred to as the 1886 Regulation), wherein, it is provided that in case of any land over which no person has the right of a proprietor, land holder or settlement holder, the State Government may make Rules to provide for, inter alia, disposal by way of grant, lease or otherwise of such land.

8. The learned counsels for the petitioners submit that in exercise of the power conferred under Section 12 of the 1886 Regulation, a Rule has been framed. As per Rule 13 (A), the State Government may by general or special order, direct that whenever a periodic lease is granted, it shall be subject to the payment of premium such r