Eviction of unauthorized occupants from Government land requires adherence to statutory procedures, including individual prior notice, as established by the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886.

ORDER

02.05.2025 Heard Mr. H. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for the respondent no. 1; and Mr. N. Das, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 2 – 4.

2. The petitioners, 103 in nos., have joined together to institute this writ petition stating that they have a common cause of action. The petitioners have stated that they are in occupation of different plots of land under Government Dag no. 2 measuring 2108 Bighas, at Village - Santoshpur, Chapar Revenue Circle, District – Dhubri. Seeking settlement of plots of land as landless persons, each of the petitioners stated to have submitted applications before the respondent authorities.

2. Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that out of the 103 nos. of petitioners, petitioner nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12 & 35 have already been issued periodic patta in their favour. It is further submitted that out of the remaining petitioners, few of them have already been granted allotment certificate for different parcels of land. Few of the remaining petitioners have submitted applications for settlement of Khas and ceiling surplus land in their favour but their applications have been rejected by the Circle Officer on the ground that their possession are found disputed and the orders passed are non-speaking orders. It is further submitted that the State respondents are in contemplation to allot the area of 2108 bighas of land covered by Dag no. 2 to the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited [APDCL] for a power project. Mr. Talukdar has submitted that a public announcement was made in the locality of the petitioners using amplifiers on 13.04.2025 at the instance of the respondent authorities, requiring all persons occupying Government land to vacate such land within a period of seven days, else, actions would be taken for their eviction. It is his submission that the petitioners are in genuine apprehension that the procedure required to be followed for any kind of eviction process would not be followed in the case of the petitioners.

4. Mr. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Finance & Taxation Department has submitted the apprehension raised by the petitioners are mere apprehension only without any substance.

5. Mr. Das, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondent nos. 2 to 4 has submitted that from the Annexure-1 series, it transpires that not all the applications have been rejected as some of the applications are still being processed and as such, there is no cause of action for those petitioners whose applications are yet to be rejected. Mr. Das has further submitted that few of the petitioners herein have not yet applied for settlement/allotment in the Government khash land under reference.

6. The matter would require further consideration.

7. Issue notice, returnable on 02.06.2025.

8. As Mr. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel has appeared and accepted notice on behalf of the respondent no. 1 and Mr. Das, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam has appeared and accepted notices on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 to 4, issuance of formal notices to the respondents stands dispensed with. Mr. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioners shall furnish requisite nos. of extra copies of the writ petition along with the annexures, to Mr. Borpujari and Mr. Das within 3 [three] working days from today.

9. Annexure-1 and Annexure-2 series, annexed to this writ petition, are Jamabandis and Allotment Certificates issued to some of the petitioners. Annexure-3 series are documents relating to submission of applications for settlement or rejection orders passed on the applications preferred by the petitioners seeking settlement of Government khash and ceiling surplus land. In most of the rejection orders, it is reflected that the applications have been rejected by the respondent no. 3 finding applicant’s possession of land disputed.

10. From the a