State must ensure procedural fairness in eviction while engaging in individualized assessments for rehabilitation claims under applicable land policies.

JUDGMENT & ORDER :

(A.D.Choudhury, J.)

1. All these batches of appeals have been taken up together for consideration.

2. We have heard Mr. N. N. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant in Writ Appeal No.311/2025; Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. R. Dhar, Advocate for the appellants in Writ Appeal No.312/2025; Mr. T. Deuri, learned Advocate for the appellants in W.A. No.313/2025; W.A. No.314/2025; W.A. No.316/2025; W.A. No.317/2025; W.A. No.318/2025; W.A. No.319/2025; W.A. No.320/2025 and W.A. No.321/2025 and Mr. R. Dhar, learned Advocate for the appellants in W.A. No.315/2025; W.A. No.325/2025; W.A. No.326/2025; W.A. No.327/2025; W.A. No.328/2025; W.A. No.329/2025; W.A. No.330/2025; W.A. No.331/2025 and W.A. No.332/2025. Also heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam, assisted by Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department in a separate set of appeals.

3. All these appeals call into question the legality and validity of the common judgment and order dated 18.09.2025 rendered by the learned Single Judge, upholding the eviction of the appellants from the parcel of government land situated at Village: Ulubari, Mouza: Ulubari under Guwahati Revenue Circle.

4. The appellants claim to be landless persons belonging to the economically weaker section socially and indigenous people of Assam and contend that their occupation for more than three decades over the plot of land was bonafide and that they are entitle to rehabilitation under the Assam Land Policy, 2019 read with the Settlement Rules framed under Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 (hereinafter referred to as Regulation, 1886).

5. The fact that the land in question is government land and is not in dispute. Initially, the same was reserved for T.B. Hospital and subsequently for the establishment of a public hospital, is also not disputed by the appellants, except appellant in WA No.311/2025, who claims that he is occupying Govt. land under Dag No. 97, which is not reserved for the T.B. Hospital.

6. The Revenue Authority initiated the eviction proceeding in question by issuing notice under Rule 18 (2) of the Settlement Rules. Such Notices were challenged by the appellants herein by filing separate and individual writ petitions.

7. The fundamental ground of the challenge was that the summary procedure of eviction under Rule 18 of the Settlement rules cannot be resorted to against the appellants, given that they have rights of settlement over the land under their occupation in terms of the Land Policy, 2019. Thus, a bona fide claim of right is involved. Yet another ground was that the appellants were not given reasonable opportunity of hearing.

8. A learned Single Judge, after taking note of the Land Policy, 2019 as well as the Settlement Rules, concluded in its judgement and order dated 07.11.2024 passed in WP(C) No./3715/2020 and in the connected cases, that the appellants were issued notice to vacate the land forthwith, without affording any opportunity to show cause and that the appellants have not been allowed to explain as to whether they have any bona fide claim to the right involved.

9. Referring to the determination made in Salak Uddin Vs. State of Assam reported in 2024 (4) GauLT 857, the learned single Judge held that the notices issued to the petitioners shall be construed as notices asking the petitioners to show cause as to why the petitioners should not be evicted by taking recourse to Rule 18 of the Se