Gauhati High Court: Eviction from Government Land Must Strictly Follow Due Process

Guwahati: The Gauhati High Court has underscored the importance of adhering to prescribed legal procedures for the eviction of individuals from Government 'khash' (government-owned) land. The court, in a case involving 357 petitioners from Dhubri district claiming occupation of land for decades, observed that any action for eviction must be in strict compliance with the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, its associated Rules, and prior judicial pronouncements.

Justice ManishChoudhury heard a writ petition filed by Sadar Ali and 356 others from Village - Charuabakhra Jangal Block, Chapar Revenue Circle, District – Dhubri. The petitioners jointly approached the court stating a common cause of action concerning their long-standing occupation of Government khash land and their applications for land settlement as landless persons.

According to the petitioners' counsel, Mr. S. Borthakur , while applications of a few petitioners for settlement were approved, a significant number (205 out of 357) have been rejected, and others are still pending. The core of the petitioners' grievance is the apprehension of eviction without due process.

The petitioners highlighted that one of them (petitioner no. 227) received a notice from the Circle Officer directing him to vacate the land within seven days, citing alleged unauthorized occupation. Furthermore, it was submitted that a public announcement was allegedly made in the locality on April 13, 2025, instructing all government land occupants to vacate within a week or face eviction action. The petitioners expressed concern that the required legal procedure for eviction might not be followed.

Adding to their apprehension, the petitioners' counsel informed the court that the State respondents are reportedly contemplating allotting a substantial area of land (2000 bighas), covering the disputed Dag numbers, to the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (APDCL) for a power project.

Responding to the petition, Mr. R. Borpujari , learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue Department, submitted that only one eviction notice (served on petitioner no. 227) was annexed to the petition, suggesting the apprehensions were unsubstantiated. Mr. N. Das , learned Junior Government Advocate for the District Commissioner and Circle Officer, contended that since some applications are still being processed and some petitioners haven't applied, there is no cause of action for all 357 petitioners.

Refuting this, Mr. Borthakur reiterated that applications of 205 petitioners have already been rejected.

The court noted that the rejection orders often cite "disputed possession" as the reason. Examining the eviction notice served on petitioner no. 227, Justice Choudhury observed that it directed vacation within seven days and threatened action under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886.

The court explicitly referenced the settled law regarding eviction from Government khash land, citing the Division Bench decision in Salak Uddin vs. State of Assam and others , reported in 224 [6] GLR 614.

"In view of the procedure laid down under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 and the Rules framed thereunder and also the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench in Salak Uddin [supra], it is observed that if any action for eviction is contemplated by the respondent authorities in respect of the plots of land claimed to be in occupation of the petitioners, then such action must be in strict adherence to the procedure laid down in the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 and the Rules framed thereunder and the directions made in Salak Uddin [supra] which includes a prior notice to each of the persons who is alleged to be in unauthorized occupation of the Government khash and ceiling surplus land," the court stated in its order dated May 2, 2025.

While the court did not pass a final order on the merits of the settlement applications or the right to occupation at this stage, it effectively put the state authorities on notice regarding the mandatory procedural requirements for any potential eviction.

The court issued notice to the respondents, returnable on June 2, 2025, for further consideration of the matter. Counsel for the petitioners was directed to furnish extra copies of the writ petition to the standing counsel for the respondents within three working days.