AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. A. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. N. Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Government of Assam for the respondent no. 1 and Mr. N. Goswami, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 2 & 3.
The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he is in occupation of a plot of Government land measuring 1 Bigha 3 Kathas 8 Lessas, which is ceiling surplus land, since a long time. The said plot of land situate at Revenue Village – Adabari Part – 1, Dhubri Revenue Circle, District – Dhubri, Assam [‘the subject-plot’], is covered by Dag no. 1214 and the subject-plot is a part of an area of land measuring 6 Bighas 4 Kathas 5 Lessas under Dag no. 1214. The petitioner’s name has been recorded in Jamabandi as dakhalker [encroacher] against the subject-plot.
The petitioner has approached this Court after he has been served with a notice bearing no. D.B.C. 07/2025/62 dated 00.08.2025 issued purportedly in August, 2025 by the respondent no. 3 under Rule 18[2] of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, 1886. In the said notice, the petitioner is shown as one of the four noticees. In the notice, it is stated that the four noticees are in occupation of an area of land measuring 6 Bighas 4 Kathas 5 Lessas under Dag no. 1214 at Revenue Village – Adabari Part – 1, Dhubri Revenue Circle, District – Dhubri.
The petitioner has stated that as he is in occupation of the subject-plot since long, he made an application for allotment/settlement of the subject-plot before the authorities on 15.11.2024. But to his surprise, the petitioner has come to learn that the area of 6 Bighas 4 Kathas 5 Lessas under Dag no. 1214 at Revenue Village – Adabari Part – 1, Dhubri Revenue Circle, District – Dhubri, Assam has been allotted by the Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Government of Assam on 20.03.2025 in favour of one Vivekananda Rock Memorial and Vivekananda Kendra Kannyakumari by issuing a Khiraj Myadi [Periodic] Patta no. 914.
Mr. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that one of the four noticees in the impugned notice dated 00.08/2025, Azizul Hoque had earlier approached this Court in a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 6119/2025, assailing the same notice. After hearing the parties, the writ petition was disposed of by an Order dated 31.10.2025 by setting aside the impugned notice bearing No.D.B.C.07/2025/62 dated 00.08.2025 issued by the respondent no. 3.
One of the contentions of the petitioner is that the time period of seven days given in the impugned notice to vacate the subject-plot to the petitioner is clearly against the mandate of law. The petitioner has further contended that on the date of issuance of the impugned notice in August - 2025 for vacating the parcel of land measuring 6 Bighas 4 Kathas 5 Lechas as Government land under Dag No. 1214, the said parcel of land had already been converted into Myadi [Periodic] Patta land on 20.03.2025 by settling it in favour of Vivekananda Rock Memorial and Vivekananda Kendra Kannyakumari. Therefore, the respondent no. 3 could not have derived any authority and jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice. It is further contended that the areas of land under Dag no. 1214 was ceiling surplus land and did not fall under the categories of land covered by Rule 18[2] of the Settlement Rules. If it is not covered by Rule 18[2], the procedure prescribed by Rule 18[3] has to be followed and the procedure prescribed by Rule 18[3] is not followed in the case of the petitioner.
Ms. Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue and Disaster Management Department and Mr. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the other State respondents have submitted that the petitioner is clearly in unauthorized occupation of the subject-plot, which was a Government land, and the State has the discretion to allot or settle a piece of Government land as per the Land Policy.
Rule 18[2] and Rule 18[3] of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, 1886 read as under :-
18[2] When such person has entered into possession of Government khas land, or Waste land or estate over which no person has acquired the rights of a proprietor, land-holder or Settlement-holder or any land that has previously been reserved roads or roadside land or for the grazing of village cattle or for other public purposes, or has entered into possession of land from which he has been excluded by general or special orders and when further, there is no bonafide claim of right involved he may be ejected or ordered to vacate the land forthwith, and the Deputy Commissioner may sell, confiscate or destroy any crop raised, or any building or other construction erected without authority on the land.
18[3] - [a] In all other cases ejactment shall be preceded by publication of a notice in the manner prescribed below requiring the occupant generally to vacate the land specified in the notice within 15 days of the date of publication of the notice on the land concerned or in a prominent place in the vicinity thereof, and to remove any buildings, houses, fences or crops, etc., which may have been raised on such land; provided that the Deputy Commissioner may give time to any particular occupant to harvest the crops, if any, growing on such land. Any buildings, houses, fences, crops etc., which have not been removed in accordance with such notice shall be confiscated to the Government.
[b] the notice referred to in clause [a] of sub-rule [3] above shall be published by affixing a copy thereof in the Notice Board of the office of the Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-Divisional Officer, as the case may be, and also in the Notice Board of the office of the Sub-Deputy Collector within whose jurisdiction the land is situated. A notice shall also be published by affixing a copy thereof on the land concerned or in a prominent place in the vicinity thereof.
A Division Bench of this Court in Salak Uddin [Md.] vs. State of Assam and others, 2024 [4] GLT 857, while considering Rule 18[2] of the Settlement Rules, has inter alia observed that in respect to the waste land/Government khas land/estate, etc. over which no person had acquired the rights of a proprietor, land holder or settlement holder; an indigenous person who is in occupation of such lands under the disposal of the Government would have a procedural legitimate expectation that before taking any decision to evict him, he would be given an opportunity to explain that he had a right to be considered for settlement over the land in his occupation. This right is, however, subject to a caveat that the occupier/possessor submits application for settlement and the Settlement Rules and Land Policy permits such consideration for settlement. The said person would also have a substantive legitimate expectation that he ought to be considered for settlement over the land in his possession in view of the Land Policy, 2019. This is again subject to filing an application for settlement and the Land Policy, 2019 duly permitting consideration of such application for settlement. It may be that the State may have a more profound reason for eviction in respect to the land in possession on public interest. On Rule 18[2] of the Settlement Rules, the Division Bench has proceeded to hold that prior to initiation of proceedings under Rule 18[2] of the Settlement Rules, an occupant/possessor of Government lands has to be issued notice.
The petitioner is seen to have filed an application for settlement of the subject-plot on 15.11.2024, the receipt of which was acknowledged by generating Acknowledgment no. RTPS/SKCSL/2024/1900918. When in the context of the observations and directions made in Salak Uddin [supra] of the Division Bench and Rule 18[2] of the Settlement Rules, the impugned notice is looked at, it is evidently clear that the impugned notice falls short of the procedural requirements for the fact that the impugned notice, purportedly issued under Rule 18[2] of the Settlement Rules, is an eviction notice without providing for an opportunity to the noticee/petitioner to explain that he has right to be considered for settlement over the subject-plot in view of his alleged occupation and only seven days to vacate has been given. On similar ground, in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 6119/2025, preferred by one of the four noticees in the impugned notice bearing no. D.B.C. 07/2025/62 dated 00.08.2025, the impugned notice was set aside and quashed by an Order dated 31.10.2025. The present petitioner, who is also one of the four noticees in the same impugned notice and similarly situated like the petitioner in W.P.[C] no. 6119/2025, is found entitled to similar relief. In such view of the matter, the impugned notice bearing no. D.B.C. 07/2025/62 dated 00.08.2025 issued by the respondent no. 3 cannot stand the scrutiny of law.
What is noticeable from the Jamabandi [Records of Right], annexed to the writ petition as Annexure- 5, is that for the parcel of land measuring 6 Bighas 4 Kathas 5 Lechas from Dag No. 1214 a Periodic Patta No. 914 [new] had already been issued pursuant to an Order bearing No. ECF.621917/2025/52 dated 20.03.2025 of the Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Government of Assam. It has, thus, emerged that when the impugned notice dated 00.08/2025 was issued to the four noticees including the petitioner, in August, 2025 under Rule 18[2] of the Settlement Rules, the parcel of land had already been converted into Periodic Patta land. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the respondent no. 3 could not have derived any authority and jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice under Rule 18[2] of the Settlement Rules. By the time the impugned notice was issued in August, 2025 in respect of Dag no. 1214 on the premise that it was Government land, it was no longer Government land. On 20.03.2025, the said parcel of land under Dag no. 1214 had already been converted to Khiraj [Periodic] Patta land with issuance of new Khiraj [Periodic] Patta no. 918 by settling it in favour of Vivekananda Rock Memorial and Vivekananda Kendra Kanyakumari. Evidently under Rule 18[2] and Rule 18[3] of the Settlement Rules, the respondent no.3 does not have any authority and jurisdiction to issue any notice to vacate Khiraj [Periodic] Patta land. Therefore, the Court is of the view that the impugned notice bearing No. D.B.C. 07/2025/62 dated 00.08/2025 is beyond the authority and jurisdiction of the respondent no. 3. Therefore, this ground also makes the impugned notice unsustainable in law.
In view of the above discussion and for the reasons assigned therein, the impugned notice bearing no. D.B.C.07/2025/62 dated 00.08.2025 is set aside and quashed in so far as the petitioner is concerned. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed to the said extent.
While parting with, it is made clear that setting aside and quashing of the impugned notice herein shall not preclude the competent authority to proceed again against the petitioner following due procedure of law, if the petitioner is allegedly found in unauthorized occupation of the subject-plot measuring 1 Bigha 3 Katha 8 Lechas.