Eviction under Rule 18(2) requires individual consideration of representations and reasoned orders before further action.

The 32 petitioners claimed long-standing occupation of different parcels of Government land in 9/6 Koilamari Revenue Village and Borbil Revenue Village under North Lakhimpur Revenue Circle, Lakhimpur District.

The Circle Officer issued similar notices dated 06.08.2026 under Rules 18(2) and 18(3) of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, alleging unauthorised occupation and requiring the petitioners to submit supporting documents and appear for hearing on 24.08.2026.

The notices stated that, if the petitioners were found to be encroachers, they would have to remove their structures or crops and vacate the land, failing which eviction action would follow; absence from the hearing could result in an ex parte decision.

The petitioners challenged the notices, contending that their individual claims and long, continuous possession had not been separately considered.

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

1. Whether the notices dated 06.08.2026 issued under Rules 18(2) and 18(3) of the Settlement Rules were invalid for failure to individually determine the petitioners’ claims before initiating eviction proceedings.

2. Whether the revenue authority was required to consider each petitioner’s representation and supporting documents and pass an individual speaking order before taking further steps for eviction.

3. Whether further eviction action could be undertaken without first determining, in accordance with due process, whether each petitioner had a bona fide claim of right over the concerned parcel of land.

The Court applied Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. Rule 18(2) permits removal of persons entering Government khas land, waste land, reserved land, or land meant for public purposes where no bona fide claim of right is involved, while Rule 18(3)(a) prescribes the procedure for ejectment in other cases, including notice to vacate and removal of structures or crops.

Relying on Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 396, the Court recognised the settled principle that common or community Government land cannot be unlawfully occupied.

Following the Division Bench decision in Md. Salak Uddin v. State of Assam, [2024] 4 GLT 857, the Court held that the authority cannot unilaterally decide whether a bona fide claim of right exists; prior notice and an effective opportunity to submit a representation and receive a hearing are necessary to satisfy Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

The Court also relied on Abdul Khaleque v. State of Assam, 2026 INSC 140, for the requirement of a fair and reasonable process, including scrutiny of documents, a speaking order, service of that order, and a further period to vacate before removal.

The Court found no procedural infirmity in the notices because they identified the alleged unauthorised occupation, invited the petitioners to submit documents and explanations, and provided for a personal hearing, thereby complying with the prior-notice and opportunity requirements recognised in Salak Uddin.

However, the existence of a notice and hearing did not authorise automatic eviction.

Since the petitioners claimed long-standing occupation and asserted individual rights or circumstances concerning separate parcels of land, the authority was required to assess each claim and the accompanying documents separately.

Determining whether a bona fide claim of right existed involved questions of law and fact that could not be conclusively decided without considering the petitioners’ representations.

Accordingly, the authority had to pass an individual speaking order determining each petitioner’s status before initiating any further eviction action.

The Court directed the Circle Officer to consider and dispose of each petitioner’s representation individually by passing a reasoned and speaking order, and to communicate the order to the concerned petitioner.

To facilitate this exercise, the petitioners were directed to submit, within seven days, a certified copy of the judgment, a copy of the writ petition with annexures, and copies of the representations allegedly already filed.

Further eviction action could be taken only after determining each petitioner’s status in this manner and by following due procedure.

No order as to costs was made.