Under the Settlement Rules of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, authorities must reach a subjective satisfaction that no bonafide claim of right exists before proceeding with the eviction of encroachers from government land.

ORDER

Heard Mr. Z. Khalid, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate appearing for respondent nos. 3 and 4.

2. At the outset, the learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate has pointed out that the respondent no.1 is the State of Assam represented by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam without indicating any department and therefore, she is unable to appear for respondent no.1 as there is no clarity of the concerned department. Accordingly, her submissions are accepted.

3. In brief, the case of the petitioners is that they are all occupying Government land covered by Dag No.275. The petitioners are in receipt of a common eviction notice dated 01.07.2026 bearing No. GLCG.13/2020/Encroachment & Eviction/Cl/2859, alleging that the petitioners have encroached Government land at revenue village-Nidanpur Pt-II at Govt. Dag No.274 in respect of land measuring 13B-02K-10L and accordingly, the petitioners along with one more noticee, were directed to vacate the Government land within 14 (fourteen) days from the date of receipt of notice. By referring to the case Md. Salak Uddin Vs. State of Assam & Ors., WP(C)/1057/2022, decided on 27.06.2024, it has been submitted that this Court has held that the noticees were in receipt of eviction notice under Settlement Rules under Assam Land and Revenue Regulation were entitled to put forward their bonafide claim in respect of their land and that under Rule 3 of the Settlement Rules the District Commissioner was required to arrive at a decision subject to satisfaction that there was no bonafide claim of right involved.

4. Per contra, the learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate has submitted that as it is the admitted case of the petitioners that they are staying in Dag No.275 and by the impugned notice dated 01.07.2026, the petitioners were directed to vacate the land under Dag No.274, therefore, the petitioners were not entitled to raise any objection or dispute the Government drive to have the land covered by Dag No.274 evicted from the encroachers. By referring to the minutes of the District Land Advisory Committee Meeting held on 03.11.2006 which is annexed to the writ petition, it is submitted that as per the documents produced by the petitioners, this approval for allotment of land was in respect of land measuring 300 B-0K-0L covered by Dag Nos. 276, 285, 286 and 275 of Village-Nidanpur Pt-II under Lakhipur Circle in favour of 607 landless families out of the land previously reserved for ex-serviceman. Accordingly, it is submitted that the said allotment and the decision taken by the Land Advisory Committee of Goalpara District would not come in the way of the Government to have Govt. land covered by Dag No. 274 to be evicted from encroachers.

5. Considered the materials available on record and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate and also having considered the judgment of this Court in the case of Md. Salak Uddin (supra).

6. It is not in dispute that the eviction notice dated 01.07.2026 is for eviction to be carried out on Govt. Dag No.274 in respect of land measuring 13B-2K-10L. The specific pleading in paragraph no.3 is to the effect that the petitioners are staying in Dag No.275. Therefore, in light of the decision of this Court in the case of Md. Salak Uddin (supra), there is requirement of the authorities, duly empowered under Rule 18(2) read with Rule 3 of the Settlement Rules to arrive at a subjective satisfaction that there is no bonafide claim of right