Mere occupation of Government land creates no right to settlement.

The petitioner claimed to have been in possession of approximately 2 Bighas 3 Kathas of Government land covered by Dag No. 312 (new)/Dag No. 11 (old), Patta No. 168 (new), at Chirakuta Part-I under Chapar Revenue Circle, Dhubri, since 2001, where he had constructed a dwelling house and paid Touzi Mouza revenue.

His application for settlement under Mission Basundhara 1.0, filed on 10 December 2022, was rejected on 11 August 2023. He subsequently applied under Mission Basundhara 3.0 on 6 December 2024.

In the meantime, the same land was settled in favour of respondent no. 6 through the Co-District Land Advisory Committee’s decision dated 15 July 2025 and mutated in his favour.

During the proceedings, the petitioner’s Mission Basundhara 3.0 application was also rejected.

He further alleged that he had been dispossessed on 9 September 2025 despite an interim status quo order dated 3 September 2025 and stated that he had initiated contempt proceedings.

Whether the petitioner’s longstanding occupation of Government land created a legal right to settlement or justified interference with the settlement granted in favour of respondent no. 6?

Whether the petitioner could be permitted to pursue a remedy under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 in relation to his alleged dispossession, notwithstanding the statutory six-month limitation period?

Whether the dismissal of the writ petition precluded the petitioner from separately challenging the rejection of his Mission Basundhara 3.0 application?

The Court applied Clause 14.3 of the Assam Land Policy, 2019, which provides that mere occupation of Government land does not confer a right upon the occupier to obtain settlement of that land.

The Court also referred to Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, under which a suit for recovery of possession following alleged dispossession must ordinarily be instituted within six months.

In view of the petitioner’s bona fide pursuit of proceedings and the subsistence of an interim status quo order, the period from 3 September 2025 onwards was directed to be excluded while computing limitation, if the petitioner chose to institute such a suit.

The petitioner’s challenge to respondent no. 6’s settlement rested principally on his alleged possession of the land since 2001.

The Court held that this circumstance, without more, could not establish a right to settlement because Clause 14.3 of the Assam Land Policy, 2019 expressly denies such a right to an occupier merely on the basis of occupation.

Since the petitioner’s own settlement application had also been rejected and no independent legal defect in the respondent’s allotment was established, the Court found no basis for judicial interference with the settlement dated 15 July 2025.

However, the Court preserved the petitioner’s potential remedies: dismissal of the writ petition would not prevent him from challenging the rejection of his Mission Basundhara 3.0 application.

Further, while facilitating a possible possession remedy under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the Court clarified that it was not deciding whether the petitioner had in fact been dispossessed; that question was left for determination by the competent civil court.

The Court clarified that the dismissal did not prejudice the petitioner’s right to challenge the rejection of his Mission Basundhara 3.0 application.

If the petitioner elected to pursue a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the period from 3 September 2025 until the date of the judgment was to be excluded for limitation purposes, subject to all issues—including whether dispossession actually occurred—being proved before the competent civil court.