Eviction notice under Rule 18(3) issued without hearing violates natural justice and is unsustainable.

The petitioner and her husband purchased 1 Katha 10 Lechas of land covered by Dag No. 99 through a registered sale deed dated 25.08.1995.

They used a portion of adjoining Government land measuring 10.38 Lechas under Dag No. 732 for ingress and egress to their property.

The petitioner’s husband applied in 2009 for settlement of the Dag No. 732 land, but the application remained allegedly undecided.

On 01.09.2021, the Circle Officer issued a notice to the petitioner’s husband under Rule 18(3) of the Settlement Rules, directing him to vacate land covered by Dags Nos. 688 and 732 within three days.

The petitioner challenged the notice and sought consideration of the settlement application.

During the proceedings, the State asserted that Dag No. 732 was Government land encroached upon by the petitioner and that it had been reserved for road purposes by orders passed in 1989.

Respondent No. 4 alleged that prior eviction proceedings had been initiated in 2011 and that the encroachment had narrowed the public road.

The Court had granted interim protection against eviction during the pendency of the writ petition.

Whether the notice dated 01.09.2021 directing vacation of the Government land within three days under Rule 18(3) of the Settlement Rules was legally sustainable when no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the occupant.

Whether the petitioner or her husband acquired any enforceable right to settlement of the Government land merely because they had been occupying or using it for ingress and egress over a substantial period.

Whether the authorities were required to consider the petitioner’s claim for settlement and the availability of alternative access to her purchased land, particularly where the Government land was allegedly reserved for road purposes.

The Court applied Rule 18(3) of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, read with the principles of natural justice, holding that an occupant cannot ordinarily be directed to vacate Government land without a proper opportunity to be heard.

It relied on Clause 14.3 of the Assam Land Policy, 2019, which provides that Government land in Guwahati or other town areas will not be settled merely because an individual has been occupying it, irrespective of the duration of occupation; settlement or eviction remains a matter for the State to determine in accordance with policy and public interest.

The Court also considered the prior reservation of Dag No. 732 for road purposes and held that occupation of Government land does not, by itself, confer a right to allotment or settlement.

Any fresh eviction action must comply with the principles laid down in Md. Salak Uddin v. State of Assam & Others, 2024 SCC OnLine Gau 921.

The Court found the impugned notice legally defective because it directed the petitioner’s husband to vacate within three days without affording the petitioner, who admittedly occupied or used Dag No. 732, an opportunity to present her case; this violated Rule 18(3) and natural justice.

However, the Court rejected any suggestion that long-standing occupation or use for access created a right to settlement.

Under Clause 14.3 of the Assam Land Policy, 2019, the authorities retained discretion either to consider settlement or to evict, subject to the land’s classification and public interest.

Since the Government asserted that Dag No. 732 had been reserved for road purposes in 1989, settlement could not be directed as a matter of right.

Nevertheless, the trace map prima facie indicated that the land abutted the petitioner’s property and might provide the only access to it.

The Court therefore directed the authorities, while considering any settlement application, to examine whether the land was recorded as waste land and whether the petitioner had any alternative ingress and egress.

The notice dated 01.09.2021 was set aside and quashed for violating Rule 18(3) and natural justice.

The petitioner was granted liberty to submit, within 30 days, an application through the Sewa Setu portal seeking settlement of Dag No. 732, provided that the land was recorded as waste land.

Respondent authorities were directed to consider the application in light of Clause 14 of the Assam Land Policy, 2019, the land’s classification, and the availability of any alternative access to the petitioner’s property.

The quashing of the notice did not prevent the authorities from initiating fresh eviction proceedings, provided they complied with the law and the principles stated in Md. Salak Uddin.

The interim order was vacated, pending interlocutory applications were disposed of, and no order as to costs was made.