Encroachment alone creates no right to settlement, but occupiers must be heard on bona fide claims before eviction.

The petitioners challenged an eviction notice bearing No. Dis-47/2016-17/5084 issued in Eviction Case No. 04/16-17 concerning 2.68 Ares of Government land covered by Dag No. 1461 at No. 2 Maidamgaon, Beltola Mouza.

They contended that 1 Katha 1 Lecha of land covered by Government Dag No. 1183 had been recommended for settlement in favour of petitioner No. 1 and that Dag No. 1461 formed part of Dag No. 1183; consequently, the eviction notice against petitioner No. 2 was said to be unsustainable.

The respondent authorities stated that old Dag No. 1183 had been renumbered as Dag No. 1719, whereas Dag No. 1461 had been created out of old Dag No. 912 and was distinct from Dag No. 1719.

Although settlement proposals had been made in 2015, no material showed that the land had actually been settled in favour of petitioner No. 1.

1. Whether the petitioners could challenge the eviction notice on the basis of alleged recommendations for settlement of land covered by Dag No. 1183, when the notice concerned distinct land covered by Dag No. 1461.

2. Whether mere occupation of Government land or a pending/proposed settlement recommendation created a legally enforceable right against eviction.

3. Whether the eviction notice was required to be treated as a notice under Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, thereby giving the petitioners an opportunity to establish a bona fide claim of right.

The Court applied Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, which requires that an occupant be afforded an opportunity to show a bona fide claim of right before further eviction action is taken.

It also relied on Clause 14.3 of the Assam Land Policy, 2019, which provides that an encroacher has no right to settlement merely because of occupation or encroachment, irrespective of its duration.

The Court further relied on Md. Salak Uddin v. State of Assam & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Gau 921, for the principle that a person occupying Government land is entitled to demonstrate a bona fide claim of right over the land.

The Court found, on the basis of the official affidavit and trace map, that the land proposed for settlement—old Dag No. 1183, renumbered as Dag No. 1719—was different from Dag No. 1461, the subject of the eviction notice.

Therefore, the petitioners could not rely on the settlement recommendations concerning Dag No. 1183 to resist eviction from Dag No. 1461.

The Court also noted that no final settlement order had been produced in favour of petitioner No. 1 and that the Assam Land Policy did not confer a right to settlement merely on the basis of encroachment.

Nevertheless, consistent with the principle recognised in Md. Salak Uddin, the petitioners were entitled to an opportunity to establish a bona fide claim of right before coercive action was taken.

Accordingly, the Court treated the impugned notice as one under Rule 18(2) rather than quashing it outright.

The writ petition was disposed of without costs.

The eviction notice was directed to be treated as a notice under Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules; the petitioners were granted 15 days from 15 July 2026 to submit a reply to the Circle Officer, Dispur Revenue Circle, demonstrating any bona fide claim of right over the occupied land.

Further steps were permitted in accordance with the decision taken by the Circle Officer and law.