The judgment emphasizes that eviction from reserved forest land must adhere to procedural safeguards ensuring fairness, as directed by the Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. A.J. Atia, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners. I have also heard Mr. S.S. Roy, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 6 and Mr. D. Gogoi, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5.

2. Thirty-six (36) writ Petitioners joined together to file the instant writ petition challenging the notice dated 12.01.2026 issued by the Respondent Authorities and further seeking that the Respondent Authorities be restrained from disturbing the peaceful possession of the Petitioners and carrying out any demolition or eviction in respect to their houses and residential plots at Udmari Tangia Forest Village under Jamuna Valley Range of South Nagaon Forest Division, Hojai District.

3. The case of the Petitioners herein are that they have been residing in the Udmari Tangia Forest Village under Jamuna Valley Range of South Nagaon Forest Division, Hojai District for many years. It is claimed by the Petitioners that the original pattadars through lawful and valid means have granted the Petitioners permission to reside upon the said lands and cultivate the lands.

4. On 12.01.2026, notices were issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, South Nagaon Forest Division, Hojai to the various Petitioners. The Petitioners apprehended that on the basis of the said notice dated 12.01.2026, the Petitioners would be evicted and as such, the Petitioners have approached this Court.

5. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties including the counsel who appears on behalf of the Forest Department.

6. Mr. D. Gogoi, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Forest Department submitted that the said notices were issued in pursuance to the directions passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the Judgment dated 18.08.2025 passed in Writ Appeal No.251/2025 and Writ Appeal No.252/2025. He further submitted that against the said judgment passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court dated 18.08.2025, Special Leave to Appeals were filed before the Supreme Court and vide a judgment dated 10.02.2026, the Supreme Court disposed of those appeals by issuing certain directions. The learned Standing counsel further submitted that in view of the said observations and directions made by the Supreme Court, the Forest Department now would take steps in accordance with the said directions passed.

7. This Court enquired with Mr. A.J. Atia, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners as to whether the lands in question wherein the Petitioners are residing fall within the reserved forest. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the lands under their occupation no doubt are reserved forest land but they were issued settlement certificates for temporary settlement under the Tonguya/Tangiya system in the year 1974.

8. This Court has duly perused the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Khalek and Others Vs. The State of Assam and Others dated 10.02.2026. A perusal of the said judgment reveals that while those appeals were pending before the Supreme Court, an additional affidavit was filed on 18.01.2026 by the State of Assam, the contents of which were reproduced in the said judgment. The Supreme Court at paragraph No.12 of the said judgment delineated the policy decision of the State of Assam to remove unauthorized occupation from the reserve forest. In addition to that, the Supreme Court also observed at Paragraph No.13 that on behalf of the State of Assam, the learned Solicitor General has assured