Nabajyoti Medhi and 6 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Nabajyoti Medhi and 6 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed: the impugned notices dated 25.02.2026 issued by the Office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Goalpara Division are set aside; the petitioners are to place their grievances along with all supporting documents before the already-constituted Committee, which is to follow meticulously the procedure approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abdul Khalek (supra).

Issue for consideration

Whether the notices dated 25.02.2026 issued by the Office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Goalpara Division directing the petitioners, who claim to be patta holders, to vacate the land were in conformity with the directions/procedure approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abdul Khalek (supra), given the petitioners' contention that the notices proceeded on a wrong presumption that the land is forest land.

Court's answer

The impugned notices dated 25.02.2026 do not appear to be in conformity with the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abdul Khalek (supra).

Ratio / Principle

The impugned notices are interfered with and set aside.

Key takeaways

The Committee already constituted pursuant to the Supreme Court-approved policy will look into the matter, before whom the petitioners are required to place their grievances along with all supporting documents.ratio¶58
The procedure approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for such consideration is to be meticulously followed by the Committee.ratio¶58

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court, order dated 06.03.2026 (Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.) in WP(C)/1310/2026 — Seven petitioners claiming to be patta holders challenged notices dated 25.02.2026 issued by the Office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Goalpara Division directing them to vacate land on the premise that it is forest land. Holding that the notices do not appear to be in conformity with the directions approved by the Supreme Court in Abdul Khalek and Ors. v. State of Assam, 2026 INSC 140 (constitution of a committee of forest and revenue officials; notice to alleged unauthorised occupants with opportunity to adduce evidence of their right to occupy; removal only upon finding of encroachment in reserved forest area; cases within revenue limits outside notified forest area referred to the revenue department; speaking order after scrutiny of documents and 15 days' notice before removal; Gaon Panchayat occupancy permissible on proof per Jamabandi Register maintained by the Forest Department or under the Forest Rights Act), the Court set aside the impugned notices and directed that the petitioners place their grievances with all supporting documents before the already-constituted Committee, whose consideration is to meticulously follow the approved procedure. Writ petition allowed.

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010044752026

2026:GAU-AS:3336

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

Case No. : WP(C)/1310/2026

NABAJYOTI MEDHI AND 6 ORS

C/O-LATE BIRENDRA CHANDRA DAS VILL- BELTOLA TINIALI DISTKAMRUPM, ASSAM

2: ANOWAR HUSSAIN

C/O-ABDUL GAFUR ALIAS GOFUR VILL-DUBAPARA DIST- GOALPARA ASSAM

3: AMINUL HOQUE

C/O-ABDUL GAFUR ALIAS GOFUR VILL- DUBAPARA DIST- GOALPARA ASSAM

4: SAIJUDDIN

C/O-HAJARAT ALI VILL-RAMAPARA PAMDIST- BARPETA ASSAM

5: SUKUR ALI

C/O-IMAN ALI VILL-DUBAPARA DIST- GOALPARA ASSAM

6: CHABURA KHATUN

C/O-ABDUL GAFUR VILL-DUBAPARA DIST- GOALPARA ASSAM

7: ABDUL HAI

C/O-KUDDUS ALI VILL-RAMAPARA PAM DIST- BARPETA ASSA

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS

TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT

Page No.# 2/5

OF ASSAM, JANATA BHAWAN ASSAM SECRETARIAT COMPLEX, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006

2:SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM ENVIRONMENT FORESTS DEPARTMENT JANATA BHAWAN ASSAM SECRETARIAT COMPLEX DISPUR GUWAHATI781006

3:COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM REVENUE DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT JANATA BHAWAN ASSAM SECRETARIAT COMPLEX DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006

4:PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND HEAD OF FOREST FORCE AND WILDLIFE

O/O THE PCCF HOFF ASSAM ARANYA BHAWAN PANJABARI GUWAHATI- 781037.

5:REGIONAL FOREST OFFICER GOALPARA FOREST REGION GOALPARA ASSAM.

6:DISTRICT COMMISSIONER GOLAPARA ASSAM.

7:SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE GOALPARA ASSAM.

8:CIRCLE OFFICER

MATIA REVENUE CIRCLE GOALPARA ASSAM

9:OFFICER IN CHARGE MORNOI POLICE STATION GOALPARA ASSA

Page No.# 3/5

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R BHUYAN, MR. S H RAHMAN,MR N Z CHOUDHURY,MR N A MAZARBHUIYA,S LASKAR

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPT,SC, FOREST

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

ORDER

06.03.2026

Heard Shri AR Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners.

The petitioners have put to challenge notices dated 25.02.2026 issued by the Office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Goalpara Division directing them to vacate the land. It is submitted that the petitioners are patta holders of the land in question and the impugned notices have proceeded on a wrong presumption that the land is forest land.

Shri PN Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam has however submitted that the issue of making the forest land encroachment free has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Khalek and Ors. Vs. State of Assam reported in 2026 INSC 140 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has approved the policy of the State whereby a Committee was to be constituted to look into the grievance of the parties residing in areas which are deemed to be forest areas and for resolution of such disputes. He has also submitted that the Committee has already been constituted.

The learned Additional Advocate General has however submitted that the impugned notices dated 25.02.2026 do not appear to be in terms of the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of Abdul

Page No.# 4/5

Khalek (supra).

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of Abdul Khalek (supra) has approved the policy adopted by the State in the following terms:

“(i) The respondents shall constitute a committee comprising forest officials and the revenue officials.

(ii) The said committee shall issue notice to the alleged unauthorised occupants and shall give them an opportunity to adduce evidence to show that they have the right to occupy the land which is in their possession.

(iii) The action for removal of encroachment shall be taken, only if it is found that there is an encroachment in the reserved forest area.

(iv) In case the noticee is found to be within the revenue limits, outside the notified forest area, the details of the noticee shall be sent to the revenuedepartment. In such cases, revenue department shall decide the future course of action.

(v) The action is being taken by the State to remove encroachment from the reserved forest areas and has nothing to do in respect of the matters which may be referred to the revenue department.

(vi) If an unauthorised occupation is found in a reserved forest area, after scrutiny of the documents, a speaking order shall be passed and shall be served on the concerned person giving him 15 days notice to vacate the unauthorized occupation and only after expiry of the period of notice, the action shall be taken to remove the unauthorised occupants.

(vii) Occupation of a Gaon Panchayat in a forest is permissible if there is a sufficient proof as per the Jamabandi Register maintained by the Forest

Page No.# 5/5

Department or as provided under the Forest Rights Act.”

This Court is of the view that the impugned notices do not appear to be inconformitywith the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Accordingly, the same are interfered with and set aside. It is however made clear that the Committee which has been said to be constituted already, would look into the matter before whom the petitioners are required to place their grievances along with all supporting documents. The procedure,as approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for such consideration are to be meticulously followed.

The writ petition accordingly stands allowedin the manner indicated above.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant