Gauhati High Court: Indigenous landless cultivators must be considered for settlement of other government wastelands, but not land allotted for a public solar project

The petitioners, residents of Charuabakhra Jungle Block, Dhubri, challenged the rejection of their applications for settlement of land comprised in Dag No. 1/70/117, Revenue Village Charuabakhra Jungle Block, Chapar Revenue Circle, Dhubri.

The applications related to lands identified in Schedules A to Z25 of the writ petition.

The applications had been rejected on the ground that possession of the land was disputed.

During the proceedings, it was noted that the relevant land had already been allotted by the Government to the Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. for establishment of a solar project, which was a public purpose, and the respondents claimed that the petitioners had been evicted.

The petitioners sought interference with the rejection orders enclosed as Annexures 64 to 114.

1. Whether the petitioners could claim settlement of the lands described in Schedules A to Z25 when those lands had already been allotted for a public purpose.

2. Whether rejection of the petitioners’ settlement applications solely on the ground of disputed possession was legally sustainable under the Assam Land Policy, 2019 and the Settlement Rules.

3. Whether the petitioners were entitled to consideration for settlement of other Government waste lands as indigenous landless cultivators, subject to the applicable statutory rules and policy preferences.

The Court applied the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 and the Settlement Rules framed thereunder.

Under Rule 1(2)(b) of the Settlement Rules, “waste lands” are lands at the disposal of the Government which have not already been disposed of by lease, grant or otherwise.

Rule 15 provides that mere possession of Government land does not create a right to settlement; an applicant has only a right to consideration in accordance with the governing law and policy.

The Court relied on the Assam Land Policy, 2019, particularly Clause 1, under which indigenous landless cultivators are entitled to consideration for settlement of rural land, and Clause 1.7, which grants preference to specified categories of applicants.

The Court also relied on Md. Salak Uddin v. State of Assam & Others, 2024 (4) GLT 857, for the principle that lands reserved or allotted for roads, grazing, or other public purposes cannot be granted in settlement.

The Court held that the lands claimed by the petitioners were no longer available for settlement because they had already been allotted to Respondent No. 5 for a solar project serving a public purpose; therefore, those specific lands could not be settled in favour of the petitioners.

However, the Court found that the stated ground of rejection—disputed possession—was inconsistent with the Assam Land Policy, 2019 and Rule 15, since possession of Government land is not a determinative prerequisite for consideration of settlement.

The Policy does not require an applicant to be in possession of the land in order to seek consideration for settlement.

Accordingly, while the petitioners had no right to settlement of the already allotted land, their applications were required to be reconsidered for other available Government waste land, subject to their eligibility as indigenous landless cultivators, the statutory Settlement Rules, the Policy, and any applicable preferential criteria.

Nevertheless, the rejection of their applications on the ground of disputed possession was set aside, and the applications were restored for independent consideration in respect of other Government waste land not reserved or allotted for public purposes.

The petitioners were granted 15 days from the date of judgment to submit documents supporting their status as indigenous landless cultivators and any entitlement to preferential consideration under Clause 1.7 of the Assam Land Policy, 2019.

The District Commissioner, Dhubri was directed to pass individual speaking orders within 90 days from service of the certified copy of the judgment.

No order as to costs was made.