Sabiram Basumatary and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC5 Jun 2025WP(C)/6571/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauhati High Court; WP(C)/6571/2016; 2025:GAU-AS:7422; Arun Dev Choudhury, J.; 06.06.2025; Kokrajhar Development Authority; demolition notice 20.10.2016; Kali Mandir Ramkrishnapur; J.D. Road; Bodoland Territorial Council; government khas land 1 katha; eviction; due process; opportunity of hearing; audi alteram partem; Rule 18(2) Settlement Rules; Rule 3 Settlement Rule; Articles 14, 19, 21 Constitution; Md. Salak Uddin WP(C) No. 1057/2022; Superintendent of Police Kokrajhar report; writ petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of: respondent authorities free to proceed as per law to remove danger to public life; any eviction of the petitioners only after due procedure including opportunity of hearing as per Md. Salak Uddin (supra); parties to bear their own costs. ¶¶41

Sabiram Basumatary and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners' challenge to the notice dated 20.10.2016 issued by the Kokrajhar Development Authority directing demolition of the Kali Mandir run by them calls for relief. +1 more

¶¶22

Court's answer

Taking note of the petitioners' grievance and prayer, the respondent authorities are at liberty to proceed against the petitioners as per law to remove the danger to public life as apprehended.

¶¶29

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners cannot be evicted from the government khas land in their possession without being given an opportunity of hearing.

¶¶30

Key takeaways

If the respondent authorities desire to evict the petitioners from the land, they may do so, but due procedure shall be followed, including the procedure mandated by the Division Bench in Md. Salak Uddin (supra) and recorded in the judgment.ratio¶¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Arun Dev Choudhury, J.), order dated 06.06.2025 in WP(C) No. 6571/2016 — disposed of. Petitioners challenged a notice dated 20.10.2016 issued by the Kokrajhar Development Authority directing demolition of the Kali Mandir run by them at Ramkrishnapur, Kokrajhar. On the report/instruction of the Superintendent of Police, Kokrajhar, the Mandir was found partly removed during improvement of J.D. Road on Government land but still running, with the remaining portion repaired by the Mondir Committee. The Court left the respondent authorities at liberty to proceed as per law to remove the apprehended danger to public life, but held that the petitioners, in possession of 1 katha of government khas land, cannot be evicted without an opportunity of hearing. Any eviction must follow the due procedure laid down by the Division Bench in Md. Salak Uddin v. State of Assam, WP(C) No. 1057/2022 — subjective satisfaction under Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules (with Rule 3 empowerment), prior notice consistent with audi alteram partem notwithstanding the word 'forthwith', in consonance with Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Parties to bear their own costs.

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010028572016

2025:GAU-AS:7422

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/6571/2016

¶6

SABIRAM BASUMATARY and ANR.

¶7

S/O. LAT HANGLA BASUMATARY, VILL. RAMKRISHNAPUR, P.O. TITAGURI, P.S. and DIST. KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM.

¶8

2: SRI RAJENDRA ADHIKARY S/O. SRI MANASWAR ADHIKARY RAMKRISHNAPUR P.O. TITAGURI P.S. and DIST. KOKRAJHAR ASSAM

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL, KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM.

¶11

2:JOINT SECRETARY REVENUE DEPTT. BTC KOKRAJHAR ASSAM PIN. 783370.

¶12

3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER KOKRAJHAR REVENUE CIRCLE BTC KOKRAJHAR PIN. 783370. 4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOKRAJHAR DIST. KOKRAJHAR ASSAM

¶13

Page No.# 2/5

¶14

PIN. 783370.

¶15

5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KOKRAJHAR DIST. KOKRAJHAR ASSAM PIN. 783370. 6:THE CHAIRMAN KOKRAJHAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KOKRAJHAR DIST. KOKRAJHAR ASSAM PIN. 783370

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.P MAZUMDAR, MR.I A TALUKDAR,MS.P BARMAN

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, BTC, GA, ASSAM

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶19

ORDER

¶20

06.06.2025

¶21

Heard Mr. I. A. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶22

Being aggrieved by a notice dated 20.10.2016, issued by the Kokrajhar Development Authority directing demolition of Kali Mandir run by the writ petitioners, the present writ petition is filed.

¶23

Though, no affidavit was filed, an instruction was produced by the Superintendent of Police, Kokrajhar, which is as follows:-

¶24

"With reference to the subject cited above, I would like to inform you that as per report of the Administrator Kokrajhar Development Authority, the Kali Mandir in JD Road at Ramkrishnapur near U.N. Academy, Kokrajhar within right way (row) of J.D. Road on Govt. land is still standing thereon except some portion removed

¶25

Page No.# 3/5

¶26

during the improvement of J.D. Road. It is further to mention here that any public gathering in the premises of Kali Mandir will pose threat/ danger to the public life due to increase traffic movement.

¶27

Another enquiry also being conducted by the Officer-in-Charge, Kokrajhar and as per his report the said Kali Mandir was partially demolished by the Kokrajhar Development Authority, later on the remaining portion of the Kali Mandir has been repaired by the Mondir Committee and devotees are offering their prayers."

¶28

From the report of the Superintendent of Police, Kokrajhar, what is seen is that some portion of the Kali Mandir is removed from JD Road at Ramkrishnapur near U.N. Academy, Kokrajhar and the Kali Mandir is being run as on date.

¶29

Taking note of the grievance of the petitioners and prayer made in the present writ petition, it is provided that the respondent authorities shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioners as per law to remove danger to public life as apprehended.

¶30

So far relating to contention of the petitioners that the petitioners are possessing a plot of government khas land measuring 1 katha and they apprehends eviction without following due process of law at the hands of the respondent State, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners cannot be evicted without giving them an opportunity of hearing. In this regard, it is noteworthy to mention that the Division Bench in Md. Salak Uddin Vs State of Assam and 2 Ors (WP(C) No. 1057/2022) , had laid down certain procedure for eviction from government khas land, road side reserve land, which are to the following effect:

¶31

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

¶32

Page No.# 4/5

¶33

bona-fide claim of right.

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

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.

¶37

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

¶38

Page No.# 5/5

¶39

and transparent procedure, which are facets of Article 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution.

¶40

In view of the aforesaid settled propositions of law, it is provided that, if the respondent authorities desires to take any action of eviction of the petitioners from the land, they may do the same, however due procedure shall be followed including that is mandated by the Division Bench in Md. Salak Uddin (supra) and as recorded hereinabove.

¶41

Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. Parties to bear their own cost.

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

Comparing Assistant

Sabiram Basumatary and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabiram Basumatary and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Padmavati Constgruction Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

On the Death of Atul Kumar Sarma,His Legal Heirs Vs the Guwahati Municipal Corporation and 3 Ors.

The Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Limited Vs the Union of India and 8 Ors.

M/S J. a. Brothers (a Proprietorship Firm), Vs Engineering Projects (India) Ltd. and 6 Ors.

M/S J. a. Brothers Vs Engineering Projects (India) Ltd. and 5 Ors.

M/S J. a. Brothers Vs Engineering Projects (India) Ltd. and 6 Ors.