Administrative actions involving civil consequences, such as the cancellation of land allotment for persons in long-term possession, must adhere to the principles of natural justice, specifically the rule of audi alteram partem, to avoid being arbitrary and unsustainable.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

The present application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been instituted by two petitioners with the following prayer:

“In the premises aforesaid, it is therefore, most respectfully prayed that Your Lordships would be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records and issue a Rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ of certiorari be not issued by setting aside and quashing the impugned minutes dated 6.02.2016 (Annexure-4) of the then Sub-Divisional Land Advisory Committee so far it relates to the land of the petitioners in proposal No.48 and/or be pleased to direct the Respondents not to disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the land measuring 1K-10L covered by Dag No.414/64Pt in the Revenue Village Bhimapara under Mankachar Revenue Circle and/or cause or causes shown if any and upon hearing the parties, graciously be pleased to make the Rule absolute and/or pass such further or other order/orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper.

-AND-

Pending disposal of the Rule, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned minutes dated 6.02.2016 (Annexure-4) of the then Sub-Divisional Land Advisory Committee so far it relates to the land of the petitioners in proposal No.48 and/or pass such other order (s) as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper for the interest of justice.

And for this act of kindness, the humble petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

As per the facts projected, the petitioners were affected by river erosion and they were occupying Government land measuring 15 lechas each covered by Dag No. 414/64 Pt. in the revenue village Bhimapara under Mankachar Revenue Circle. It is contended that such possession was from the year 2006. In the year 2015 the Sub-Divisional Land Advisory Committee, South Salmara, Mankachar Sub-Division (hereinafter SDLAC) in its meeting dated 23.11.2015 had approved the allotment of the land in favour of the petitioners. However, vide the impugned resolution of the Committee dated 06.02.2016, the aforesaid allotment has been cancelled and the land has been allotted to the respondent no. 6 – School. It is this action which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

I have heard Shri M. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Shri J. Handique, learned State Counsel, Shri A. Bhattacharyya, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department and Shri Z. Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6.

Shri Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the decision by the SDLAC in the meeting held on 23.11.2015 had taken into consideration all the relevant factors and the approval for allotment was made in favour of the petitioners who were already in possession since more than a decade. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the resolution dated 23.11.2015 wherein the relevant aspect pertaining to the petitioners finds place against Sl. No. 48. He has submitted that by such decision, a right had vested upon the petitioners and by impugned resolution dated 06.02.2016 the said right has been infringed. He has submitted that apart from the impugned decision being irrational and arbitrary, the same is also in gross violation of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of any kind was afforded to the petitioners before such cancellation.

He has also submitted that the aspect that no opportunity was granted has been admitted by the respondent no. 2 in the affidavit filed on 26.08.2016. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to a recent affidavit filed by the respondent no. 5 on 19.03.2026 wherein the verification of the certificate pertaining to river erosion has been dealt with.

Shri Khan, the learned counsel has informed this Court that while this writ petition was moved, there was a stay order which is in operation.

Shri Handique, the learned State Counsel has, on the other hand s