Abdul Sattar vs The State Of Assam

Page No.# 1/9
GAHC010227282026

2026:GAU-AS:15830
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5803/2026
ABDUL SATTAR
S/O HARAT ALI ALIAS HAJRAT ALI
2: NAYEB ALI
S/O MD. ALATAB ALI
3: AKASH ALI
C/O RAMJAN ALI
4: ABDULLAH FARUK
S/O ABDUL RAZAQUE
5: HABIBULLAH ISLAM
S/O ABDUL KADIR
6: HANIF ALI
S/O IMATAJ ALI ALIAS IMTAJ ALI
7: AMENA BEGUM
C/O KITAP
8: NUR AMIN ALIAS NUR AMIN ALI
S/O RAJAB ALI
9: IDUL HUSSAIN
S/O ABUL HUSSAIN
10: SADDAM ALI
S/O MORTOJ ALI
11: IDRICH ALI ALIAS IDDIS ALI
S/O HUSSAIN ALI
12: ABDUL SUBHAN

Page No.# 2/9
C/O IDRISH ALI ALIAS IDDIS ALI
13: SAHJAHAN ALI
C/O MORTOJ ALI ALIAS MURTUJ ALI
14: HAFIJUR RAHMAN
S/O MUSARAF HUSSAIN
15: SAPTAR ALI
S/O KACHEM ALI ALL THE ABOVE-NAMED PETITIONERS ARE
RESIDENTS OF 9/6 KOILAMARI
P.O. AND P.S.- NORTH LAKHIMPUR
DISTRICT- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM
PIN NO-787051 AND 787031
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
ASSAM, JANATA BHAWAN, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006.
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
JANATA BHAWAN
DISPUR
GUWAHATI781006.
3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
LAKHIMPUR
NORTH LAKHIMPUR
PO AND PS- NORTH LAKHIMPUR
DIST- LAKHIMPUR
PIN787001
ASSAM.
4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
NORTH LAKHIMPUR REVENUE CIRCLE
LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM-787001
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. Z KHALID, MS. A BEGUM,MR. M R HAZARIKA,MR. M H
ALI
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, REVENUE

Page No.# 3/9
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
JUDGMENT
15.10.2026

Heard Mr. M.H. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. S.S. Roy, learned Junior

Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 1, 3 & 4; Mr. A. Bhattacharya, learned
Standing Counsel, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Government of Assam for
the respondent no. 2.

2. The petitioners, fifteen in nos., have joined together to institute the present writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution stating that they have a common cause of
action. As regards the common cause of action, the petitioners have stated that they have
been residing in various parcel of Government land at 9/6 Koilamari Revenue Village since
long. The petitioners have approached this Court by the instant writ petition on being
aggrieved by issuance of similar notices to them on 06.08.2026 by the respondent no. 4.
Some of those notices are annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-1 series.

3. Mr. Ali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has referred to the contents of
the notices in Assamese dated 06.08.2026 and their English translation to advance his
submissions.

4. For ready reference, the contents of a notice dated 06.08.2026 are extracted
hereinbelow :-

GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM

Office of the Circle Officer: North Lakhimpur Revenue Circle: Lakhimpur

No: NL.L.C/Eviction - 2026/1346 Date: 06/08/2026

Page No.# 4/9
xxxxxxx
xxxxxxx

NOTICE REGARDING EVICTION UNDER SETTLEMENT RULE 18(2) OF THE ASSAM
LAND AND REVENUE REGULATION, 1886.

NOTICE

It is hereby informed to you that it has come to the notice of the undersigned that you have
unlawfully occupied general Government land in 9/6 Koilamari Revenue Village under
North Lakhimpur Revenue Circle.

In view of this, in accordance with Government Notice No. 18[2] under the Assam Land
and Revenue Regulation, 1886, observing the directives of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, Appeal no. 1132/2011, @ S.L.P. [C] no. 3109/2011
[Jagpal Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others], Md. Salak Uddin vs. the State of
Assam and two others on June 27, 2024, and Supreme Court Writ Petition [Civil] no.
295/2022, and as per the Revenue and Disaster Management Department Office
Memorandum no. RLR-162/2008/25 dated 06.02.2010 and H.H. 188/2011/Pt./29 dated 15
June 2015, under the powers conferred upon the undersigned under Rule 18[2] and 18[3]
of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, you are directed to submit any
documents supporting your claim, details, and circumstances regarding any house, shop,
building, or other construction erected by you on the said land to the Office of the Circle
Officer, North Lakhimpur, within 15 [fifteen] days. A hearing regarding this matter will be
conducted on 24.08.2026 at 11-00 a.m. If during the hearing you are proven to be an
encroacher, you must remove or clear any house, shop, building, or any type of crop
constructed or grown by you from the land at your own expense within 15 [fifteen] days,
and vacate the land. Otherwise, eviction action will be carried out by the administration as
per the rules. Furthermore, if you fail to appear at the office of the undersigned on the date

Page No.# 5/9
fixed for the hearing, the matter will be disposed of ex-parte based on the available
records, and eviction orders will be issued against you without any further communication.

Consider this matter urgent.

Schedule of Land :
Revenue Village: 9/6 Koilamari
Mouza : Nakari
Dag No.: 444

5. From the notices, it transpires that the noticees were asked to appear in the office of
the respondent no. 4 on 24.08.2026 to submit all documents in support of their respective
claims qua their occupation over the areas of land in 9/6 Koilamari Revenue Village under
North Lakhimpur Revenue Circle. The notices have made reference to Rule 18[2] and Rule
18[3] of the Settlement Rules, framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886;
the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no. 1132/2011 arising out of
SLP[C] no. 3109/2011 [Jagpal Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others, (2011) 11
SCC 396]; Civil Appeal no. 295/2022 [Abdul Khaleque and others vs. State of Assam and
others]; and the Judgment and Order dated 27.06.2024 in W.P.[C] no. 1057/2022 [Md. Salak
Uddin vs. the State of Assam and others], [2024] 4 GLT 857. The respondent no. 4 had asked
the noticees to explain the circumstances under which the noticees had constructed houses,
shops, buildings or other constructions in various land falling purportedly under 9/6 Koilamari
Revenue Village under North Lakhimpur Revenue Circle within fifteen days from the date of
issuance of the notice also on 24.08.2026.

6. In the notices, it is further mentioned that during the course of enquiry, if any of the
noticees are found out to be an illegal encroacher, such noticee would be required to vacate
from the area of land in respect of which he is found out to be an illegal encroacher and also,
to remove all types of crops or structures at his own expense within a period of fifteen days
from the date of hearing. Else, eviction process would be carried out as per law and the cost

Page No.# 6/9
incurred for the eviction would be recovered from such noticee. It has been informed that in
the event a noticee would fail to appear at the office of the respondent no. 4 on the date
scheduled for hearing, the matter would be decided ex-parte on the basis of existing records
and there would be no further communication before an Order of eviction.

7. Mr. Ali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the notice is
silent about individual consideration of the claim of each of the noticees as regards his or her
possession over an area of land under 9/6 Koilamari Revenue Village under North Lakhimpur
Revenue Circle . He has submitted that the petitioners are in long, continuous and
uninterrupted possession of different areas of land, small in sizes. The petitioners were earlier
having lands and they had been rendered homeless and landless due to various reasons.

8. Mr. Roy and Mr. Bhattacharya have responded by submitting that the notices are as per
the provisions of the Settlement Rules, framed under the Land and Revenue Regulations,
1886 and in deference of the procedure indicated in the decisions referred to in the notices.

9. Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules has mentioned about ejection. Sub-rule [2] of Rule 18
has provided that when such a person 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. Sub-rule [3][a] of the Rule 18
has provided for ejectment in all other cases which do not fall under Rule 18[2]. Rule 18[3]
[a] has prescribed for publication of a notice requiring the occupant to vacate the land
specified in a notice, within fifteen days from the date of publication of the notice in the
manner prescribed 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.

Page No.# 7/9

10. The law regarding common village land/community land like VGR, PGR has been well
settled by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh [supra] and the same
is not required to be adverted to. On consideration of the provisions of Rule 18, a Division
Bench of this Court in [supra] has drawn a conclusion that the revenue
Salak Uddin
authorities cannot be permitted to unilaterally decide as to whether an occupier/possessor
has a bonafide claim of right involved in as much as it would require adjudication of both law
and facts and if an opportunity to the occupier/possessor is not provided, the same would be
in violation of the principles of natural justice which, in turn, would violate Article 14, Article
19 and Article 21 of the Constitution. It has been observed that prior notice to the
occupier/possessor before initiation of proceeding under Rule 18[2] of the Settlement Rules is
the mandate of law in order to save Rule 18[2] of the Settlement Rules from being
constitutionally invalid on procedural grounds.

11. This Court having regard to the provisions of the Settlement Rules and the
observations made in Salak Uddin [supra] finds no infirmity in issuance of the notices dated
06.08.2026, is for as the aspects regarding serving prior notices and grant of opportunity to
file representation and to afford personal hearing are concerned.

12. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that in response to
the notices, the petitioners/noticees have already responded by submitting their individual
replies along with all the supporting documents in respect of their claim, more particularly,
about the permission granted to the petitioners or predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners
to reside in the areas in question.

13. It is relevant to refer to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abdul Khaleque
and others vs. State of Assam and others , 2026 INSC 140 , which arose out of notices
issued by an authority in the State Government to the appellants therein on the premise that
the appellants were allegedly residing inside reserved forest areas. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court did not find any infirmity in the process sought to be adopted by the State respondents
for removal of encroachment, as the process is found to have conformed to the principles of

Page No.# 8/9
fairness, reasonable and due process. The process to be adopted in the case in hand is also
to be similar, as like in Abdul Khaleque [supra], the noticees have been provided an
opportunity to represent within a period of fifteen days, by the notices, dated 06.08.2026.

14. On the process sought to be adopted by the State respondents for removal of
encroachment from reserved forest areas, placed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the
State Government had undertaken that if an unauthorised occupation is found under the
reserved area after scrutiny of the documents, a speaking order would be passed and shall be
served on the concerned person, giving him fifteen days’ notice to vacate the unauthorised
occupation and only after expiry of the period of notice, the action shall be taken to remove
the unauthorised occupants.

15. Taking note of the above observations of the Division Bench in Salak Uddin [supra]
and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abdul Khaleque [supra], this Court is of the considered
view that when a noticee is served with a notice alleging unauthorised occupation on his part
of any plot of land, which falls in the categories of land mentioned in Rule 18 of the
Settlement Rules, the noticee is to be given due opportunity of placing his case before the
authority by way of a representation, if he chooses to do so, and thereafter, the authority is
obligated to give due consideration to such representation submitted in response to the
notice qua the claim made by the noticee, and to all the documents, if any, submitted along
with the representation in support of his or her claim, regarding his or her occupation and
right to be settled, on the concerned plot of land, and thereafter, to pass a speaking order as
regards the status of the noticee qua the plot of land, stated to be allegedly under his or her
unauthorized occupation.

16. As Mr. Ali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the
petitioners have already submitted their representations in response to the notices and a
hearing has already been taken place, the responsibility is now cast upon the authority to
dispose of each of the representations so submitted by passing a speaking order individually.
It is accordingly ordered. The speaking order to be so passed is to be communicated to each
of the petitioners immediately thereafter. It is only after determining the status of each of the

Page No.# 9/9
noticees in the afore-mentioned manner, further action contemplated under the law is to be
taken.

17. With the observations made and the directions given above, the writ petition is
disposed of. There is no order as to cost.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant