A vague land-vacation notice issued without hearing violates natural justice and is liable to be quashed.

The petitioner challenged a Notice dated 28 February 2024 issued by the Additional Secretary and Revenue Officer, Dima Hasao Autonomous Council, directing him to vacate land in excess of 3 bighas 5 kathas on the allegation that the excess area belonged to Late Sojen Thaosen.

The petitioner claimed possession of 7 bighas 2 kathas 8 lessas under Annual Khiraj Patta No. 4, covering Dag No. 14 at Natun Haja Part-II, and relied on the patta, regular payment of land revenue, and boundary walls allegedly erected in 2005.

The respondents contended that the petitioner had obtained possession of 3 bighas 5 kathas from Sojen Thaosen in 2005, but that no official transfer had taken place, and that the disputed lands fell in separate surveyed villages and dags.

They also relied on Annual Khiraj Patta No. 22, which was issued in favour of Sojen Thaosen only on 3 February 2025.

The petitioner argued that the notice was vague, that he had no land in Natun Haja Part-I, and that it was issued without prior notice or an opportunity to show cause.

Whether the Notice dated 28 February 2024, directing the petitioner to vacate the alleged excess land, was legally sustainable despite being vague and lacking sufficient particulars regarding the land allegedly encroached upon?

Whether the issuance of the vacation notice without prior notice, reasons, or an opportunity to represent violated the principles of natural justice and fair play?

Whether the Dima Hasao Autonomous Council authorities had the jurisdiction to direct vacation of land alleged to be the private property of Late Sojen Thaosen?

The Court exercised judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It applied the principles of natural justice and fair play in administrative action, holding that before directing a person to vacate land—a drastic coercive measure—the authority must provide sufficient reasons identifying the alleged encroachment and must give the affected person a meaningful opportunity to show cause.

The Court further applied the rule that an administrative notice must contain clear and adequate particulars and that an authority cannot, without establishing jurisdiction, direct vacation of land claimed to be private property belonging to another person.

The Court found that the notice failed to clearly identify the alleged encroached land, its precise location, boundaries, or the basis for distinguishing the petitioner’s land in Natun Haja Part-II from the land allegedly belonging to Sojen Thaosen in Natun Haja Part-I.

The respondents also failed to clarify whether Sojen Thaosen held any valid patta or legal document before the notice was issued, particularly since the relied-upon Annual Khiraj Patta No. 22 was issued only in 2025, after the impugned notice and after Sojen Thaosen’s asserted death in 2007.

Further, the authority proceeded directly to issue a vacation notice without first informing the petitioner of the grounds of the proposed action or giving him an opportunity to contest the alleged encroachment.

The Court also held that the authority’s power to order vacation was questionable because the alleged encroached land was claimed to be private property of Sojen Thaosen rather than Council land.

Accordingly, it set aside and quashed the notice and allowed the writ petition, with no order as to costs.

The Court clarified that the authorities were not precluded from proceeding afresh in accordance with law and due procedure, and that its observations did not determine the petitioner’s right, title, or interest in the allegedly encroached land.