Disposed

Munni Das v. the State of Assam and Ors.

Gauhati HC7 Aug 2025WP(C)/4467/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an eviction notice. The Court, relying on Md. Salak Uddin, directed the Revenue Department to follow due process under Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules, including notice and consideration of bona-fide claims via a speaking order. Writ petition disposed of with these directions.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with direction to follow due process under Rule 18(2) and natural justice; eviction deferred 30 days post-speaking order.

Munni Das Vs the State of Assam and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Gauhati HC (2025)

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010170332025

2025:GAU-AS:10420

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/4467/2025

¶6

MUNNI DAS D/O- NAGINA DAS, W/O- LATE TILAK DAS JAISWAR, R/O- BILLPAR, H.NO-55A, REHABARI BYELANE NO-1, AK AZAD ROAD, REHABARI, KAMRUP METRO, GUWAHATI-08, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS

¶9

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND D.M DEPARTMENT, DISPUR SECRETARIAT, GUWAHATI-781006, KAMRUP (M), ASSAM

¶10

2:THE COMMISSIONER

¶11

GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

¶12

3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KAMRUP (M) OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KAMRUP METROPOLITAN DISTRICT LICHUBAGAN HENGRABARI GUWAHATI-781036 KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE KAMRUP METRO GUWAHATI ASSA

¶13

Page No.# 2/5

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G G GOGOI, MR. S J SARMAH,MR. T BARUAH,A TALUKDAR,MR. P BOIRAGI

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, GMC,SC. REVENUE

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶17

ORDER

¶18

08.08.2025

¶19

Heard Mr. T. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue Department, Assam.

¶20

Assailing a notice dated 30/06/2025 , by which the petitioner was directed to vacate the land under her possession by 15/07/2025 or to face an eviction after 15/07/2025, the present writ petition is filed. It is contended that the petitioner has not yet been evicted pursuant to notice dated 30.06.2025.

¶21

The case of the petitioner is that the ancestor of the deceased husband and mother-in-law of the petitioner, namely Late Um Rai Devi @ Om Rai Devi had occupied a plot of land measuring 1 (One) Katha 5 (Five) Lechas, covered by Dag No. 1359 of revenue Village Sahar Guwahati Part II, under Mouza Guwahati, within the Guwahati Revenue Circle office, in the district of Kamrup (M) since 1937 (before independence) and has been paying Tozi bahi revenue and Municipal Taxes since 1947 as per law. On 21/01/1995 and 02/04/1998, the deceased mother-in-law of the petitioner submitted an application for the settlement of the land in her favour, and as per the report submitted by the Circle Officer (then) to the Deputy Commissioner (then) of Kamrup, the Beel/The proposed land was not under the Borsola and Sorusola Beel .

¶22

Page No.# 3/5

¶23

It is the further case of the petitioner that her land does not fall under the category of Borsola Beel as described by the Guwahati Waterbodies (Preservation and Conservation) Act, 2008. The petitioner also applied through the government application "Sohari Setu" for the settlement of the land. As the petitioner belongs to the Schedule Caste community, Harijan, and she and her family have been living there since 1937 by paying all taxes since 1947, she had a bonafide right to get settlement and therefore, she should not be evicted from the land in question. Accordingly, it is contended that notice dated 30/06/2025 is not sustainable in law more particularly, in view of mandate of Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules, framed under Assam Land and Revenue Regulation. It is also contended that such notice is in violation of the ratio laid down by a Division Bench in Md. Salak Uddin –Vs- State of Assam and 2 Ors [WP(C) No. 1057/2022].

¶24

Mr. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue Department contends that though notice has been issued, however, in the notice itself, it is projected that if she donot vacate on her own, she will be evicted by following due process of law. Therefore, the petitioner should not have any apprehension of immediate eviction.

¶25

This Court has given anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶26

A Division Bench of this court in WP(C) 1057/2022 (Md. Salak Uddin Vs. State

¶27

of Assam and 2 Ors.), while dealing with a reference as to whether a notice is required to be issued under Section 18(2) of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 has made certain conclusion. Since such conclusions are having importance and determinative factor in adjudication of an eviction process, the same are curved out in the following manner:

¶28

I. Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules clearly shows that

¶29

Page No.# 4/5

¶30

Deputy Commissioner or such authority duly empowered under Rule 3 of the Settlement Rule has to arrive at a subjective satisfaction that there is no bona-fide claim of right.

¶31

II. Revenue authorities cannot be permitted to unilaterally decide as to whether an occupier/ possessor has a bona-fide claim of right involved inasmuch as it would require adjudication of both law and facts and without providing an opportunity to the occupier / possessor, such decision would be in violation of the principle of natural justice which in turn would violate Article 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution.

¶32

III. Though Rule 18 (2) is silent on the question of issuance of the notice, but use of the word ‘forthwith’ does not necessarily and absolutely exclude the prior application of audi alteram partem Rule inasmuch as immediacy or urgency requiring swift action is a situational fact, having a direct nexus with the likelihood of adverse affect.

¶33

IV. Bona-fide claim, in case of Government khas land or waste land, may involve a bona-fide claim of right to claim settlement over the land on the basis of settlement Rules and extant land policy of the Government of Assam. In respect of other lands i.e. lands previously reserved for roads or roadside lands, or for grazing of village cattle or for other public purposes or the occupant had entered into possession of land from which he has been excluded by general or special order, such lands are outside the purview of settlement, there may be various situations, where the question of disputes pertaining to the boundary or there may be disputes pertaining to reservations or de-reservation for grazing of village cattle or for that matter, there may be a dispute that the persons who have been granted the settlement in respect of a land even prior to being previously reserved for the purpose, may arise.

¶34

Page No.# 5/5

¶35

V. Under such circumstances, issuance of a notice shall be necessary to form a subjective satisfaction, which is in consonance with the principles of natural justice inasmuch as same will facilitate a just, fair and transparent procedure, which are facets of Article 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution.

¶36

In view of the aforesaid determination and the stand of the Revenue Department that the aforesaid notice is only for giving a chance to the petitioner to vacate land on her own and that the eviction shall be carried by following due process envisaged under Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules, this writ petition stands disposed of permitting the Revenue Department to proceed with the eviction process in terms of notice dated 30/06/2025 , however, such eviction cannot be carried out without following the due mandate as laid down by the Division Bench in Md. Salak Uddin (supra) and quoted hereinabove i.e. by giving proper notices to the petitioner and thereafter, representation of the petitioner, if any, raising her bonafide claim shall be considered and shall be decided by a speaking order.

¶37

In the event, such determination is against the petitioner, the eviction shall not be carried out for a period of 30 (thirty) days from furnishing a copy of such speaking order, so that the petitioner can avail her remedies.

¶38

Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

Comparing Assistant

Munni Das v. the State of Assam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munni Das v. the State of Assam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Chhakchhuak Lalthanpara Vs Dr. Lairuatpuli Hiawnmual and 9 Ors.

Dr. Chhakchhuak Lalthanpara Vs Dr. Lairuatpuli Hiawnmual and 9 Ors.

The State of Assam Vs Ashish Nath and Anr.

Kumar Deepak Das Vs Shri Himanta Biswa Sarma and 2 Ors.

M/S Tarun Chandra Sonowal Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Fateha Khatun Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.