Eviction under Rule 18 is invalid unless the land is first established as Government land.

The petitioners challenged a notice issued by the Circle Officer, Bongaigaon Revenue Circle, dated 14 June 2024, directing them to vacate the disputed plot, remove their structures and establishments, and warning that eviction proceedings would be initiated under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 within 15 days.

The petitioners contended that the land was Railway land and that the State Revenue Authorities therefore lacked jurisdiction to evict them.

The Railway authorities stated that the land was Railway land and produced the relevant Chitha records. However, the Circle Officer’s subsequent instruction recorded that Dag No. 119 was shown as Government land, classified as “Sreni Nai,” in the land records, while the disputed portion was recorded as Railway land in the draft Chitha.

Whether the Circle Officer could initiate eviction proceedings under Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 without first determining whether the disputed land was Government land or Railway land?

Whether the eviction notice dated 14 June 2024 was legally sustainable when the Revenue Authorities themselves were uncertain about the ownership and classification of the disputed land?

Whether, if the land is ultimately found to be Government land, the Revenue Authorities must issue a fresh notice in accordance with Md. Salak Uddin v. State of Assam & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Gau 921?

The Court applied Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, holding that the power under Rule 18 can be exercised only where the land falls within the categories specifically identified in Rule 18(2).

The Court further relied on Md. Salak Uddin v. State of Assam & Others, 2024 SCC OnLine Gau 921, directing that, if proper verification establishes that the land is Government land, eviction action must be preceded by a proper notice consistent with that judgment.

The Court found a material inconsistency in the official records: the land was described as Government land in the revenue record but as Railway land in the draft Chitha, and the Railway authorities expressly asserted Railway ownership.

Since the Revenue Authorities had not first resolved this fundamental question, they had not established that the land fell within the categories covered by Rule 18(2). The Circle Officer therefore lacked a sufficient jurisdictional basis to invoke Rule 18 and issue the impugned eviction notice.

The notice was accordingly set aside.

The Court clarified that, after proper verification, if the land is found to be Government land, the Revenue Authorities may take lawful action only by issuing a proper notice in accordance with Md. Salak Uddin. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations and directions.