Eviction under Rule 18(2) of Settlement Rules requires prior notice and opportunity to contest unauthorized occupation.

The petitioner’s family claimed continuous possession of a plot of land in North Lakhimpur for over 33 years, asserting it was covered under Touji Patta no. 31 & Dag no. 625.

The petitioner regularly paid Touji Bahira (encroachment penalty).

On 06.06.2026, the Circle Officer (Respondent No. 4) issued an eviction notice alleging the petitioner had unauthorizedly constructed a shop on land reserved for National Highway 15 (Dag no. 602).

The petitioner challenged this notice, arguing it violated the procedure prescribed by law and that the land was not actually part of the NH-15 reservation.

1. Whether the notice of eviction dated 06.06.2026 complied with the statutory procedures and principles of natural justice required for evicting an unauthorized occupant of Government land.

2. Whether the payment of Touji Bahira revenue confers any legal right, title, or interest upon the occupant over Government land.

Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, which empowers the Deputy Commissioner to eject persons from Government khas land or reserved land.

Salak Uddin (Md.) v. State of Assam and others (2024 [4] GLT 857), which established that even unauthorized indigenous occupants have a "procedural legitimate expectation" to be served a notice and provided an opportunity to explain why they should be considered for settlement under the Land Policy, 2019, prior to eviction.

While the court clarified that paying encroachment penalties (Touji Bahira) does not grant any title or right to the land, it emphasized that the State must follow due process before eviction.

The court found that the notice dated 06.06.2026 was essentially a summary eviction order rather than a "show cause" notice. It failed to provide the petitioner with a meaningful opportunity to explain his long-term occupation or his potential eligibility for land settlement under existing Government policies.

By giving only seven days to vacate without a prior hearing, the authority violated the procedural safeguards inherent in Rule 18(2) as interpreted by previous judicial mandates.

The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned notice dated 06.06.2026, granting the competent authority the liberty to initiate fresh eviction proceedings, provided they comply with the law by affording the petitioner a due opportunity to be heard.