Dayaram Sharma Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/9

¶2

GAHC010063612025

¶3

2025:GAU-AS:10357

¶4

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/1713/2025

¶6

DAYARAM SHARMA S/O- LATE JASHKARAN SHARMA, H.NO-107, NEAR UCO BANK, NAVAJYOTINAGAR, PANJABARI ROAD, PANJABARI, P.S- SATGAON, P.O- BAGHORBARI, DIST-KAMRUP (M), GUWAHATI-37, ASSAM

¶7

2: RAJU SHARMA S/O- LATE JASHKARAN SHARMA

¶8

H.NO-107 NEAR UCO BANK NAVAJYOTINAGAR PANJABARI ROAD PANJABARI P.S- SATGAON P.O- BAGHORBARI DIST-KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI-37

¶9

ASSAM

¶10

3: NILU SHARMA S/O- LATE JASHKARAN SHARMA

¶11

H.NO-107 NEAR UCO BANK NAVAJYOTINAGAR PANJABARI ROAD PANJABARI P.S- SATGAON P.O- BAGHORBARI DIST-KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI-37

¶12

Page No.# 2/9

¶13

ASSAM

¶14

4: SHIVAM SHARMA S/O- DAYARAM SHARMA

¶15

H.NO-107 NEAR UCO BANK NAVAJYOTI NAGAR PANJABARI ROAD PANJABARI P.S- SATGAON P.O- BAGHORBARI DIST-KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI-37

¶16

ASSAM

¶17

5: SHUBHAM SHARMA S/O- DAYARAM SHARMA

¶18

H.NO-107 NEAR UCO BANK NAVAJYOTI NAGAR PANJABARI ROAD PANJABARI P.S- SATGAON P.O- BAGHORBARI DIST-KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI-37

¶19

ASSA

¶20

VERSUS

¶21

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06

¶22

2:THE DIRECTOR

¶23

LAND RECORDS AND SURVEYS ASSAM RUPNAGAR GUWAHATI-32.

¶24

Page No.# 3/9

¶25

3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KAMRUP METRO GUWAHATI ASSAM

¶26

4:THE CO-DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DISPUR CO-DISTRICT BASISTHA CHARIALI GUWAHATI

¶27

DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM

¶28

5:THE CIRCLE OFFICER DISPUR REVENUE CIRCLE GUWAHATI

¶29

DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM

¶30

6:THE COMMISSIONER GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

¶31

DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM

¶32

7:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER THE GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-0

¶33

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S KANUNGOE, C V INTONG,MR. D MAZUMDAR,MR. K N CHOUDHURY

¶34

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, GMC, SC, G M D A,GA, ASSAM,SC, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPT

¶35

BEFORE

¶36

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

¶37

ORDER

¶38

Date : 05-08-2025

¶39

Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. S. Kanungoe, learned counsel for the petitioners, at length. Also heard Mr. J.

¶40

Page No.# 4/9

¶41

Handique, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue and Disaster Management Department, appearing for the respondent No. 1, Mr. D. Gogoi, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, appearing for the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 and Mr. S. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, GMC/GMDA, appearing for the respondent Nos. 6 and 7.

¶42

The petitioners in the present proceedings have assailed a notice dated 18.03.2025 issued by the Circle Officer, Dispur Revenue Circle, directing the petitioners to vacate the Government land occupied by them within a period of 7 (seven) days.

¶43

As projected in the writ petition, the petitioners submit that their predecessor had in the year 2001 bought a plot of land from one Bhetak Mikirani, vide Sale Deed No. 1614 dated 23.02.2001. It is further projected that the petitioner No. 1 had also on 23.02.2001 bought a plot of land from the same vendor. The petitioners project that after having bought the said land, they were enjoying the possession thereof peacefully.

¶44

On the apportionment of the land-in-question among the petitioners, the Dag number of the land under occupation of the petitioners came to be renumbered as Dag No. 974 and 978. Further, a Myadi Kheraj Patta was also issued in favour of the petitioners and the land records also corrected, incorporating the names of the petitioners therein.

¶45

Posed thus the petitioners received on 20.03.2025, a notice dated 18.03.2025 issued by the Circle Officer, Dispur Revenue Circle, requiring the petitioners to vacate the land under their occupation by projecting that such

¶46

Page No.# 5/9

¶47

land was Government land.

¶48

In the said notice, the land under possession of the petitioners, were projected to be covered by Dag No. 970 and 979 of village Bagharbari, Mouza – Beltola, District – Kamrup (M).

¶49

Being aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of instituting the present proceedings.

¶50

Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are possessing the land under Dag Nos. 974 and 978 and their names have also been incorporated in the land records. It is further projected that the Circle Officer on an erroneous view of the matter, had proceeded to issue the impugned notice dated 18.03.2025 to the petitioners herein, by projecting that they were occupying the Government land covered by Dag Nos. 970 and 979.

¶51

Mr. Choudhury has submitted that the respondents in their affidavit having contended that the eviction process is only limited to the Government land covered by Dag Nos. 970 and 979, and there being no move to evict any land holder from the Myadi Patta; the issuance of the notice to the petitioners in the matter inspite of the fact that they are not occupying any Government land would go to reveal that the respondent authorities are contemplating to evict the petitioners from their Myadi Patta land and accordingly, protection of this Court is sought for in the matter.

¶52

Per contra, Mr. D. Gogoi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5, has submitted that the eviction process initiated in the

¶53

Page No.# 6/9

¶54

matter pertains to the encroachment by the petitioners of the Government land covered by Dag Nos. 970 and 979 of village Bagharbari, Mouza – Beltola, District – Kamrup (M). He submits that in the event the petitioners are not possessing any Government land over the said Dag Nos., the petitioners ought not to have any apprehension of they being evicted, inasmuch as, admittedly the process of eviction is in relation to encroachers of the Government land in question.

¶55

Mr. Gogoi has further submitted that the impugned notice was issued to the petitioners inasmuch as it was found that they were in occupation of the Government land covered by Dag Nos. 970 and 979, by constructing house and a boundary wall and the said land was adjacent to the Myadi Patta land under occupation of the petitioners covered by Dag Nos. 974 and 978. It is submitted by Mr. Gogoi that the eviction exercise would be limited only to the Government land covered by Dag Nos. 970 and 979 and would not affect the Myadi Patta land of the petitioners herein.

¶56

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on records.

¶57

The contention raised by the petitioners in the matter would go to reveal that the petitioners are in possession of the Myadi Patta land covered by Dag Nos. 974 and 978. The petitioners have denied to have encroached upon any Government land, more particularly, the land covered by Dag Nos. 970 and 979. However, in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioners to the affidavit-inopposition filed by the respondent No. 3, a contention is raised in paragraph 5 thereof, that during the construction of the house and boundary wall by the

¶58

Page No.# 7/9

¶59

petitioners’ father and their grandfather, there was no Government land and the petitioners had not constructed any house and boundary wall on the Government land.

¶60

In view of the fact that both the parties have submitted that the land-inquestion involved in the eviction process is a Government land covered by Dag Nos. 970 and 979 and there is no move to evict any person occupying the Myadi Patta land, and in view of the notice having been issued to the petitioners on 18.02.2025 to vacate the land occupied by them and the said land being projected in the notice to be the Government land covered by Dag Nos. 970 and 979, the said aspect of the matter being disputed by the petitioners herein; this Court is of the considered view that prior to eviction of the petitioners from the Dag Nos. 970 and 979, the authorities must first ascertain as to whether the petitioners are in actual possession of the land covered by the said Dag Nos. Accordingly, the petitioners herein are directed to submit a representation before the District Commissioner, Kamrup (M), i.e. the respondent No. 3 on or before 26.08.2025 and therein with regard to the notice dated 18.05.2025, project that the petitioners are not occupying any land covered by Dag No. 970 and 979 and accordingly, the said notice would require to be recalled.

¶61

The District Commissioner, Kamrup (M), on receipt of such representation from the petitioners, shall schedule a date of hearing in the matter and thereafter, issue notices in the matter to the petitioners, as well as to the Circle Officer, Dispur Revenue Circle. Thereafter, upon hearing the parties to the proceeding, as well as after having a verification report with regard to the fact as to whether the petitioners herein are encroaching upon the Government land covered by Dag No. 970 and 979, the District Commissioner, Kamrup (M) shall

¶62

Page No.# 8/9

¶63

pass appropriate orders in the matter. In the event, it is found upon such consideration by the District Commissioner, Kamrup (M) that the petitioners herein are in possession of the Government land covered by Dag Nos. 970 and 979, the District Commissioner, by affording a reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to vacate the said land, proceed to take such steps for eviction of the petitioners therefrom, in the event they do not vacate the land within the time framed prescribed by the District Commissioner in the matter.

¶64

In the event the petitioners are not found to be in occupation of the Government land covered by Dag Nos. 970 and 979, the District Commissioner shall direct the Circle Officer, Dispur Revenue Circle, Dispur, not to proceed further with the notice dated 18.03.2025.

¶65

The exercise now required to be initiated and concluded by the District Commissioner, shall be so initiated and concluded within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order, from the petitioners herein.

¶66

In the event, the petitioners approach the District Commissioner on or before 26.08.2025, in terms of the directions passed herein above, till conclusion of the exercise required to be carried out in the matter, thereafter by the District Commissioner, Kamrup (M), no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners in terms of the notice dated 18.03.2025.

¶67

With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

¶68

JUDGE

¶69

Page No.# 9/9

¶70

Comparing Assistant

Dayaram Sharma v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dayaram Sharma v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bikash Thakuria Vs the Bodoland Territorial Council and Ors.

Iman Ali Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Haji Abdul Kayum Barbhuyan @ Abdul Kayam Borbhuyan Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Nur Islam Tapadar Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

A P Builders and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Dhanjit Kumar Pathak Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.