GAHC010055472026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/1586/2026 RANA ALI AND ANR S/O- LATE MOTIUR RAHMAN, RESIDENT OF VILL/TOWN- MOLLA PARA, P.S.- JALUKBARI, SUB-DIVISION- GUWAHATI, DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM- 781014

2: RAJU ALI S/O- LATE MOTIUR RAHMAN RESIDENT OF 1218 VILL/TOWN- MOLLA PARA P.S.- JALUKBARI SUB-DIVISION- GUWAHATI DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M)

ASSAM- 78101 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND SETTLEMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GHY-06 2:THE COLLECTOR/THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER (REVENUE ANND SETTLEMENT BRANCH)

KAMRUP (M) DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M)

ASSAM GHY-37

3:THE CO-DISTRICT COMMISSIONER JALUKBARI CO-DISTRICT JALUKBARI GUWAHATI SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M)

ASSAM GUWAHATI-14

4:THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE KAMRUP (M)

DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M)

ASSAM GUWAHATI-01

5:THE CIRCLE OFFICER AZARA REVENUE CIRCLE AZARA DIST- KAMRUP (M)

ASSAM GUWAHATI-17

6:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE AZARA POLICE STATION AZARA DIST.- KAMRUP (M)

ASSAM GUWAHATI-1 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P MAHANTA, A GOSWAMI Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, REVENUE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

ORDER

17.03.2026 Heard Shri P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioners, who are aggrieved by an eviction notice dated 27.02.2026, issued by the Circle Officer, Azara Revenue Circle.

The contention advanced is that the land in question was purchased by a registered sale deed in the year 1982 by the father of the petitioners and therefore, the impugned notice may not affect the petitioners.

On the other hand, both Shri N. Goswami, learned State Counsel and Ms. P.R.

Mahanta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department have contended that the land is a part and parcel of the Tribal Belt and Blocks which is protected under Chapter-X of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 (Regulation). They have also contended that admittedly, both the vendor and the vendee are not Tribal who are protected under the aforesaid provisions.

Shri Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to Regulation 164 of the Regulation under Chapter-X as per which, though there is a bar for transfer of land to any person not belonging to a class of people notified under Section 160, that bar is not applicable to any person who is a permanent resident with further requirement that previous permission from the Deputy Commissioner would be necessary. There is a further proviso that in granting such permission the Deputy Commissioner shall have due regard to the interests of persons belonging to the classes notified under that section. From the pleadings and the documents annexed to the instant petition, it is not discernible that the aforesaid provisions have been complied with or not.

Issue notice, returnable on 30.03.2026.

Ms. Mahanta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue accepts notice on behalf of the respondent no. 1 whereas Shri Goswami, learned State Counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 to 6.

Let extra copy of the writ petition be served upon the learned counsel for the respondents.

Shri Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for an interim order which has, however, been seriously objected to by the learned counsel for the respondents.

Considering the facts and circumstances and also the registered sale deed dated

15.12.1982, till the returnable date, no coercive action for eviction of the petitioners be taken.

It is made clear that this interim order pertains only to the petitioners of the instant petition as the impugned order also includes other persons.

List this case along with WP(C)/1455/2026.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant