Authorities must individually decide encroachment claims by speaking order before taking eviction action.

The fifteen petitioners challenged notices dated 6 August 2026 issued by the Circle Officer, North Lakhimpur Revenue Circle, alleging their unauthorised occupation of Government land at 9/6 Koilamari Revenue Village.

The notices required them to submit supporting documents and attend a hearing, warning that eviction proceedings could follow if they were found to be encroachers.

The petitioners argued that they had long occupied small plots and that their claims required individual consideration.

At the hearing of the writ petition, their counsel stated that the petitioners had submitted individual replies with supporting documents and that a hearing had taken place.

Whether the notices issued under Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules were procedurally invalid for failing to provide prior notice and an opportunity to present the occupants’ claims.

Whether the authorities were required to consider each petitioner’s representation and supporting documents individually and issue a speaking order before taking further action.

Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules, framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, permits ejection in specified cases where no bona fide claim of right is involved; Rule 18(3)(a) provides for notice and an opportunity to vacate in other cases.

In Md. Salak Uddin v. State of Assam, the Gauhati High Court held that an authority cannot unilaterally determine whether a bona fide claim exists without giving the occupant an opportunity to be heard.

Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 396, addresses protection of common village lands from encroachment.

In Abdul Khaleque v. State of Assam, 2026 INSC 140, the Supreme Court accepted an encroachment-removal process that included scrutiny of documents, a speaking order, and notice to vacate before removal.

Taken together, these authorities require fair consideration of an occupant’s claim before eviction action is taken.

The Court found no procedural infirmity in the notices insofar as they gave the petitioners prior notice and an opportunity to submit documents and be heard.

However, the notices did not dispense with the authority’s obligation to determine each petitioner’s claim fairly.

Since the petitioners had submitted individual representations and supporting documents, the Circle Officer had to consider each representation and the accompanying material, determine the individual’s status in relation to the land, and provide reasons in a speaking order before taking further action.

It directed the authority to decide each petitioner’s representation by an individual speaking order and communicate that order to the petitioner.

Further action under the law may be taken only after each noticee’s status has been determined in that manner.

The writ petition was disposed of without an order as to costs.