Eviction under Rule 18 requires individual consideration of representations and reasoned speaking orders.

The 75 petitioners claimed to have been residing for a considerable period on different portions of Government land situated at 9/6 Koilamari Revenue Village, North Lakhimpur Revenue Circle, Lakhimpur, Assam. They challenged notices dated 6 August 2026 issued by the Circle Officer under Rule 18(2) and Rule 18(3) of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, alleging unauthorised occupation and directing them to submit supporting documents and appear for hearing on 24 August 2026.

The petitioners contended that they were in long, continuous and uninterrupted possession of small parcels and had submitted individual replies with supporting documents, including documents relating to permission granted to them or their predecessors to reside on the land. They alleged that the notices did not individually consider their respective claims.

Whether the notices dated 6 August 2026 issued under Rule 18(2) and Rule 18(3) of the Settlement Rules were invalid for failure to individually determine the petitioners’ claims before initiating eviction proceedings?

Whether the revenue authority was required to consider each noticee’s representation and supporting documents and pass an individual speaking order before taking further eviction action?

Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules permits ejectment from Government khas land, waste land, reserved land or land held for public purposes where no bona fide claim of right is involved, while Rule 18(3)(a) prescribes notice and an opportunity to vacate in other cases.

The Court relied on Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 396, concerning restoration and protection of common village and community land. It followed the Division Bench decision in Md. Salak Uddin v. State of Assam, [2024] 4 GLT 857, which held that the revenue authority cannot unilaterally decide whether a bona fide claim of right exists; prior notice, opportunity to submit a representation and personal hearing are necessary to satisfy natural justice and Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court also applied Abdul Khaleque v. State of Assam, 2026 INSC 140, requiring scrutiny of documents, a speaking order, service of that order and a further notice period before removal of an unauthorised occupant.

The Court held that the impugned notices were not infirm merely because they initiated proceedings under Rule 18(2) and Rule 18(3). They supplied prior notice, called upon the petitioners to produce documents, and provided an opportunity of personal hearing, thereby satisfying the procedural safeguards identified in Salak Uddin.

However, the authority could not conclusively determine the petitioners’ status through a general or collective process without separately examining each person’s claim, representation and supporting documents. Since the petitioners asserted that they had already submitted individual replies and that a hearing had taken place, the Circle Officer was required to assess each claim individually and determine whether the concerned person had a bona fide claim or was an unauthorised occupant. That determination had to be made through an individual speaking order before any further eviction action could be undertaken.

The speaking order was to be communicated to each petitioner immediately thereafter. Further action under law, including eviction, could be taken only after such individual determination and in accordance with the applicable procedure. There was no order as to costs.