Village grazing reserve land cannot be settled, but eligible indigenous landless cultivators may seek alternative rural land.

The petitioners occupied 3 Bighas, 2 Kathas and 8 Lechas in Dag No. 15, West Dhani Ram Pather Kisamat, Hojai Mouza, and had applied for settlement in 1990.

After eviction notices were issued under Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules, the Assam Board of Revenue set the notices aside and directed consideration of their applications under the Government Land Settlement Policy.

In 1994, the High Court likewise set aside the notices and directed the Deputy Commissioner to consider and decide the petitioners’ claims within two months, while protecting them from eviction in the meantime.

The authorities did not decide the applications, prompting the present writ petition in 2016.

The State later informed the Court that the occupied land was recorded as a Village Grazing Reserve (VGR) and could not be settled.

1. Whether the petitioners could obtain settlement of the land they occupied, given that it was recorded as a VGR.

2. Whether the petitioners could seek consideration for settlement of other rural land under the Assam Land Policy of 2019, subject to satisfying its eligibility requirements.

3. Whether the petitioners could be protected from eviction while their settlement applications were being considered.

Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules provides the procedural basis for eviction notices, which had been set aside in the earlier proceedings.

The Assam Land Policy of 1989 had been replaced by the Assam Land Policy of 2019; under the latter, indigenous landless cultivators may be considered for settlement of land in rural areas, with applications required to be submitted through the Sewa Setu Portal.

Applying Jagpal Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others, (2011) 11 SCC 396, the Court stated that land recorded as a VGR could not be settled with the petitioners.

Although the petitioners had occupied the land for more than 36 years and had obtained earlier orders requiring consideration of their applications, the occupied plot was recorded as a VGR.

In light of Jagpal Singh, the Court held that settlement of that land was not available.

It nevertheless allowed the petitioners to apply under the 2019 Policy and directed the authorities to consider settlement of other rural land if they establish that they are indigenous and landless cultivators.

The prior orders and the present directions were to be taken into account, and the petitioners were not to be evicted while their applications remained pending.

It granted the petitioners liberty to apply through the Sewa Setu Portal under the Assam Land Policy of 2019 and directed the authorities to consider settlement of other rural land, subject to proof that the petitioners are indigenous landless cultivators.

The authorities were further directed not to evict the petitioners until the settlement applications are decided.