Before evicting alleged PGR encroachers, Assam authorities must consider each person’s documents and pass an individual speaking order, Gauhati HC directs

The 74 petitioners claimed to have been residing in 1 No. Boginadi PGR Revenue Village and 2 No. Boginadi PGR Revenue Village, Lakhimpur, since 1983 after being rendered homeless and landless during disturbances connected with the Assam Movement.

They relied on certificates showing that some petitioners were affected by the disturbances, electoral-roll entries from 1985, land-holding and revenue-payment certificates, and evidence of public facilities and government benefits extended in the locality.

The Circle Officer, Kadam Revenue Circle, issued individual notices dated 16 June 2026 alleging unauthorised occupation of land in the two PGR villages.

The notices required the petitioners to submit documents and appear for hearing, warning that eviction would follow if they were found to be illegal encroachers.

The petitioners challenged the notices, contending that their individual claims and alleged permission to reside had not been addressed.

During the proceedings, they stated that they had already submitted individual representations with supporting documents and that a hearing had taken place.

1. Whether the notices issued under Rule 18(2) and Rule 18(3) of the Settlement Rules for alleged encroachment upon PGR land were legally infirm for failing to individually determine the petitioners’ claims and bona fide claims of right.

2. Whether, after receiving the petitioners’ representations and documents, the revenue authority was required to individually consider them and pass speaking orders before taking further eviction action.

Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules permits summary ejectment from Government khas or waste land, land reserved for roads, village-cattle grazing or other public purposes, or land from which the occupant has been excluded by general or special order, where no bona fide claim of right is involved; Rule 18(3)(a) prescribes the notice-based procedure for ejectment in cases not falling under Rule 18(2).

The Court relied on Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 396, concerning protection and restoration of common village lands such as VGR/PGR land.

Following Md. Salak Uddin v. State of Assam, 2024 4 GLT 857, the Court held that the revenue authority cannot unilaterally decide whether a bona fide claim of right exists; prior notice and an opportunity to present documents are necessary to satisfy natural justice and Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

The Court also relied on Abdul Khaleque v. State of Assam, 2026 INSC 140, recognising a fair and reasonable process involving scrutiny of documents, a speaking determination, communication of the order, and a further period to vacate before removal of an unauthorised occupant.

The Court found no infirmity in the issuance of the notices because they gave the petitioners an opportunity to submit claims and supporting materials before any final determination of unauthorised occupation.

Although PGR land is protected common land and Rule 18(2) may apply if the villages were duly notified as PGR, the authority was still required to determine whether each petitioner had a bona fide claim, including claims based on the State’s alleged permission to rehabilitate persons affected by the 1983 disturbances.

Such determination could involve disputed facts regarding possession, boundaries, reservation status and the circumstances of occupation, and therefore could not be made unilaterally or without hearing.

Since the petitioners asserted that individual representations and supporting documents had already been submitted and a hearing had occurred, the Circle Officer was required to consider each case separately and issue a reasoned decision before commencing eviction proceedings.

The speaking orders were to be communicated to the respective petitioners immediately thereafter.

Further action under law, including eviction, could be taken only after such individual determination.

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