GAHC010047092022 2026:GAU-AS:2775 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/1709/2022 PREMJIT SHARMA S/O. MOHANLAL SHARMA, VILL. BONDA, P.O. BONDA, P.S. CHANDRAPUR, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.

VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY., TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.

2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KAMRUP (M) DISTRICT GUWAHATI-781001.

3:THE SUPDT. OF POLICE POLICE HEAD QUARTER ULUBARI GUWAHATI-781007.

4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER CHANDRAPUR REVENUE CIRCLE KAMRUP (M)

ASSAM.

5:THE LAT MANDAL OFFICE OF THE CIRCLE OFFICER CHANDRAPUR REVENUE CIRCLE KAMRUP (M)

ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S BORTHAKUR, MR. K K HANDIQUE,MR. D GOGOI Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, REVENUE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

ORDER

24.02.2026 Heard Shri D. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri N.

Das, learned State Counsel and Shri Satyajit Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department.

2. Considering the subject matter involved, the fact that this writ petition is of the year 2022 and also as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

3. As per the facts projected, the petitioner is the owner and possessor of a plot of land measuring 1 katha, 5 lechas covered by Dag No. 420 of KP Patta No.53 of revenue village Bonda under Mouza Beltola, Chandrapur Revenue Circle in the district of Kamrup (Metro). The petitioner claims that his name is also recorded in the jamabandiand he has been paying the land revenue. He has also constructed residential housein the year 2011.However, on 05.03.2022, the respondent nos. 4 and 5 had arrived at his plot and started demolition of his residential house without any prior notice. It is this action which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

4. Shri Gogoi, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that before taking the impugned action, no notice of any kind was issued.He has submitted that adjacent to his Myadi Patta land, there are Government lands, which were under his occupationand without any notice, the impugned action has been taken. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 08.03.2022, whereby an interim protection was granted not to take any action without following the due procedure of law and the relevant Rules in force.He has also submitted that the said interim order has been extended from time to time and is in operation.

5. Shri N. Das, learned State Counsel has however submitted that the land in question over which the eviction procedure has been conducted is covered by Dag No. 383 and is Government Khas landon which the petitioner had encroached unlawfully.He has however fairly conceded that before any action for eviction is taken, there is a requirement to follow the due process of law as laid down in the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation and the Rules framed thereunder. He has also referred to the principles laid down by this Court while interpreting the saidRules, including the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of Md.Salak Uddin Vs. State of Assam reported in

2024 (4) GLT 857

6. Shri Satyajit Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department while endorsing the submissions of the learned State Counsel, has reiterated that the possession of the petitioner over the plot of land in question was illegal and therefore such an eviction process was done bona fide.

7. The law governing the subject is well settled. The Assam Land and Revenue Regulation and the Rules framed thereunder gives the power to the authorities to evict any encroachers from Government land. While interpreting the same, the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of Salak Uddin (supra) has laid down as follows:

“63. We further find it very pertinent herein to observe that taking into

account Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules which deals wi