The court emphasized the need for a legitimate claim submission regarding land disputes before taking eviction actions by the relevant authorities.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. S. Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. G. Hazarika, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 1; Mr. J. Handique, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 7 and Mr. J. Chutia, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3, 5 and 6.

2. The petitioner herein claims that he is the lawful pattadar and possessor of a plot of land admeasuring 21 Bighas 2 Kathas 10 Lechas situated at Kaliram Bosti, Khatkhati under Mouza Borjan, Patta No. 10, Dag No. 16 in the district of Karbi Anglong, Assam. On the said land, the petitioner was carrying on a business in the name and style of Alok Brick Bhatta since 2011. On account of the construction of a four-lane road, the petitioner shut down the said Bhatta in the year 2018, but has been regularly paying land revenue. The petitioner had also received compensation in respect to the 5 Bighas of land that were acquired and the remaining 16 Bighas 2 Kathas 10 Lechas still remained in his possession.

3. A demarcation notice dated 24.06.2025 was issued whereby the petitioner was asked to remain present when the demarcation was to be carried out by the L.R. staff on 26.06.2025 at 10.00 A.M. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.

4. The materials on record show that this Court vide an order dated 01.09.2025 issued notice.

5. It is very pertinent to take note of that in the order dated 01.09.2025, the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court duly recorded the objection of Mr. J. Chutia, the learned Standing Counsel for the KAAC, to the effect that while the petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of Dag No. 16, the demarcation notice pertains to Dag Nos. 142 and 168. The record further reveals that the petitioner thereupon filed 2 (two) miscellaneous applications.

6. The first application was filed on 16.10.2025 seeking a stay of the demarcation notice dated 24.06.2025 and the eviction notice dated 10.09.2025 issued by the Assistant Settlement Officer/Assistant Revenue Officer, Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council. It is pertinent to take note of that the eviction notice dated 10.09.2025 refers to the land covered by Dag No. 168 of Periodic Patta No. 66 which is recorded in the name of Smt. Protima Timungpi. The petitioner was accordingly issued notice as per Rule 18(1) and Rule 18(3)(a) of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886.

7. The second application filed by the petitioner seeking a stay of the eviction notice dated 29.01.2026 issued by the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council wherein reference was made to Dag No. 168 of Patta No. 66 of an area of land admeasuring 2 Bighas 4 Kathas 19 Lechas.

8. This Court has perused the pleadings and finds that the petitioner has not given any justification, as to how, the petitioner is affected by the said impugned notices taking into account that the Dag numbers mentioned in the impugned notices is Dag No. 168 of Patta No. 66 whereas the petitioner's landholding certificate and the Jamabandi for the surveyed village both dated 11.01.2024 enclosed as Annexures I and II to the writ petition refer to Dag No. 16 of Periodic Patta No. 10.

9. The Court also heard the learned Standing Counsel for the KAAC, who submitted that instead of pursuing the present proceedings, the petitioner ought to have approached the respondent No. 3 by placing necessary materials to show that the petitioner has any relation with Dag No. 168 of Patta No. 66 or any claim over the said land