Back
2026 Supreme(Gau) 579
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Devashis Baruah, J.
Hajrat Ali S/O Late Patu Molla – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam Represented By The Secretary To The Govt. Of Assam, Revenue And Disaster Management Department – Respondent
WP(C) 582 of 2026
Decided On : 16-02-2026
Important Points
Subject
Property Law - Land Use and Tenure
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Legal Principle of Natural Justice - Requirement of notice before eviction procedures; failure to consider claims based on representations violates Article 21 rights. (Paras 14, 18)
(C) Scope of Writ Jurisdiction - Court's discretion to treat eviction notices as Show Cause Notices, allowing representation and personal hearings before any eviction decision is made. (Paras 17, 20)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners occupy lands in Doloni Beel due to erosion and have applied for their allotment without response, facing eviction notices demanding vacating and demolition of structures without adjudication on claimed rights.
Findings of Court:
Notices treated as Show Cause Notices allowing Petitioners to submit representations and necessitating personal hearings for rights determination.
Issues: Legitimacy of eviction without prior adjudication; rights conferred by the Assam Land Policy and natural justice concerns.
Ratio Decidendi: Court highlights the necessity that eviction must uphold the principles of natural justice, ensuring affected parties can present their claims and defenses before any action is taken.
Result: Writ petition disposed with directions to allow representation and personal hearings.
For the Petitioner:Mr. K. K. Mahanta, Sr. Advocate Mr. M. Ali, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mrs. P. R. Mahanta, Standing Counsel, Mr. B. J. Talukdar, Sr. Government Advocate
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners' long-term possession and claims over the land. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. liability of government to adjudicate before eviction. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 3. government's arguments on land ownership claims. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. legal framework of land occupancy without permission. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. necessity of notice for eviction proceedings. (Para 14 , 17) |
| 6. right to be heard before eviction. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 7. directive to treat notices as show cause notices. (Para 20) |
JUDGMENT :
Devashis Baruah, J.
Heard Mr. K. K. Mahanta, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. Ali, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and Mr. B. J. Talukdar, the learned Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. I have also heard Mrs. P. R. Mahanta, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1.
2. Two hundred sixteen (216) writ petitioners have joined together to file the instant writ petition complaining about various notices issued by the Respondent No.6 which have been collectively enclosed to the writ petition as Anenxure-8 (series).
3. The Petitioners herein claim that they are in possession of various small plots of land at village Doloni Beel, Boitamari Revenue Circle, in the District of Bongaigaon.
4. The case of the Petitioners herein is that they owned lands which were eroded by the river Brahmaputra and its tributaries. Thereafter, being poor cultivators, they occupied lands at Doloni Beel under Boitamari Revenue Circle in the District of Bongaigaon about 50 years ago and constructed dwelling houses thereon. The said lands are covered by various dag numbers, which have been duly mentioned in Paragraph No.3 of the writ petition. It is, therefore, the case of the Petitioners that they are not encroachers but are in settled possession of the lands.
5. It is also stated at Paragraph No.3 of the writ petition, that a perusal of the 1971 voter list of Village Doloni Beel shows that the Petitioners are descendants of persons who had been occupying land in the said village since 1971 as landless and river-eroded persons. After occupying the lands, they submitted several representations before the District Commissioner, Bongaigaon, seeking allotment of the occupied land in their names in view of their respective possession; however, no action has been taken till date.
6. Mr. K. K. Mahanta, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submitted that no decision has been taken in respect to all those applications by the Respondent Authorities. It is however pertinent to observe that filing of application seeking settlement prima facie appears that the Petitioners have admitted that these are Government lands.
7. The grievance of the Petitioners however is that while their applications seeking settlement are pending, the Respondent Authorities have issued notices on 08.01.2026 under Section 18(3) of the Settlement Rules to the Petitioners. These notices as already stated above have been collectively enclosed as Annexure-8 (series) to the writ petition.
8. The learned Senior counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Respondent No.6 by way of these notices dated 08.01.2026 have directed the Petitioners to demolish their houses/structures, remove all encroachments and vacate the lands on or before 23.01.2026 without carrying out any adjudication as regards the rights of the Petitioners qua the lands under their possession. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that on one hand, the Petitioners have been asked to vacate within 15 days i.e. on or before 23.01.2026 and on the other hand, the Petitioners have been also asked that if they have any claim or objection regarding their rights over the said lands, they need to submit the same along with relevant supporting documents to the Office of the Respondent No.6 on or before 23.01.2026 which means that even if any representation is submitted, it would not be a meaningful exercise
