Sorhab Ali and 39 Ors. Vs the Govt of Assam and 3 Ors.

35: MALEK ALI S/O- ABDUL ALI VILL- JANGALIPARA P.S- AZARA DIST.- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM 36: SAMIRUL HOQUE S/O- NAZRUL ISLAM VILL DEURALI P.S- AZARA DIST.- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM

¶84

37: RANJU BEGUM W/O SHOHIDUL ISLAM VILL JANGALIPARA

¶85

Page No.# 8/16

¶86

PS AZARA

¶87

DIST KAMRUP (M) ASSAM

¶88

38: ANSER ALI SON OF LATE MUNSER ALI VILL JANGALIPARA PS AZARA

¶89

DIST KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 39: MATLIB ALI S/O- FIROJ ALI

¶90

VILL- PACHANIAPARA P.Z- AZARA

¶91

DIST.- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM

¶92

40: NURUL ISLAM S/O- MARFAT ALI

¶93

VILL- PACHANIAPARA P.Z- AZARA

¶94

DIST.- KAMRUP(M) ASSA

¶95

VERSUS

¶96

THE GOVT OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI

¶97

2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KAMRUP (M) AT GUWAHATI

¶98

3:THE CO-DISTRICT COMMISSIONER JALIKBARI CO-DISTRICT KAMRUP (M) AT JALUKBARI GUWAHATI-13

¶99

4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER AZARA REVENUE CIRCLE

¶100

Page No.# 9/16

¶101

DIST KAMRUP (M) ASSAM. PIN CODE 78101

¶102

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J AHMED, S RAHMAN,MR. R ISLAM,MR S ISLAM,MR. A ALI

¶103

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

¶104

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

¶105

ORDER

¶106

11.03.2026

¶107

Heard Shri J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri N. Goswami, learned State Counsel and Shri R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department.

¶108

40 nos. of petitioners have joined together in this petition seeking the following relief:

¶109

“ PRAYERS

¶110

In the premises of aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to admit this writ petition, call for the records and issue Rule, calling upon the Respondent authorities to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Certiorari, Mandamus and/or any other writ, order or direction, as prayed for shall not be issued to:

¶111

A) set aside and/or quash the impugned notices of eviction dated 27.02.2026 issued to the Petitioners by the Circle Officer, Azara Revenue Circle in the district of Kamrup (M) Assam [Annexure-6&7(Colly)].

¶112

Page No.# 10/16

¶113

B) direct/command the state Respondents not to carry out the proposed eviction drive and/or not to demolish permanent or temporary structures standing upon the scheduled lands as mentioned in the impugned notices dated 27.02.2026 [Annexure-6&7(Colly)];

¶114

C) direct/command the state Respondents not to carry out any eviction and demolition exercise against the Petitioners and any of their houses or other properties without following due process of law;

¶115

D) direct/command the Respondent authorities not to disturb the Petitioners from enjoying their right to stay in their respective plots of land where prescriptive rights stood vested upon them by virtue of the Sale Deeds/Power of Attorney etc. which were lawfully executed in favour of the petitioners by the owners and possessors;

¶116

E) direct/command the Respondent authorities to award similar protection as the petitioner maybe entitled to as per the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court and also by our Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in respect of similarly situated persons on the ground of parity;

¶117

F) direct/command the state respondents to accept representations to be submitted by the petitioners and consider the same on individual basis and till then, no adverse or coercive action be initiated against them.

¶118

-AND-

¶119

Upon cause/causes being shown by the respondents and on perusal of records and hearing the parties be pleased to make the Rule absolute.

-AND-

INTERIM PRAYER

Page No.# 11/16

In the interim, pending final disposal of this writ petition, this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay/suspend the effect and operation of the impugned notices of eviction dated 27.02.2026 [Annexure6&7(Colly.)];

¶124

-AND-

¶125

This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct the Kamrup (M) District Administration authorities, particularly the Respondent No. 3 and 4 not to initiate any eviction/demolition over the aforesaid scheduled lands whereby the Petitioners are residing.

¶126

-AND-

¶127

This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to pass such further order/orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

¶128

The challenge is against an eviction order dated 27.02.2026 whereby the petitioners have been directed to vacate the land situated at Pachaniapara village under Dakhin Rani Mouza in the district of Kamrup (M). The said eviction is on the ground that the area falls within Tribal Belt and Blocks under Chapter X of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 .

¶129

The petitioners have contended that the area in question is not tribal belt or block but revenue land which are under their occupation. It is also contended that the impugned action is in violation of the principles of natural justice and the Assam Land Policy of 2019.

¶130

Shri Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioners has, at the outset submitted that the petitioners are not the land owners but are possessing the

¶131

Page No.# 12/16

¶132

land on the strength of Power of Attorneys. Few of such Power of Attorneys have also been enclosed to the writ petition. He has submitted that the Tribal Belt and Blocks were constituted in the year 1950 and there was a PIL in this Court being PIL No. 78/2012 which was disposed of 09.12.2019. However, taking advantage of the said direction, the impugned action has been taken without first ascertaining as to whether the land in question falls within tribal belts and blocks. He has also submitted that the said action is in gross violation of the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 2121/2020 which has been disposed of vide order dated 03.02.2020. The said SLP had arisen from the order dated 09.12.2019 passed in PIL No. 78/2012 wherein it has been laid down that the Deputy Commissioner was to give reasonable time to the occupants to take recourse to appropriate remedy as permissible in law. He has submitted that while 15 days time has been granted vide the impugned order dated 09.02.2026, the same is only for vacating the land and not for seeking appropriate remedy. He has also highlighted that one of the notice is dated 27.02.2026 which is issued by the Circle Officer and is general in nature and not communicated individually. Further, in the initial notice though Patta Nos. and Dag Nos. of the area involved were mentioned, no boundaries as such were mentioned and therefore, the notices were vague. He has further contended that individual notices were not received. However, he has conceded that the petitioners had appeared before the authorities and submitted the documents. He has also submitted that the outcome of such consideration however has not been communicated to them.

¶133

Per contra, Shri R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department has submitted that the area in question falls under Tribal Belt and Blocks and the notification in that regard to carry out an eviction process was

¶134

Page No.# 13/16

¶135

issued way back in September, 2025. He has submitted that there was no challenge to the said notification wherein, in a tabular form, the description of the land in question was given including the Dag Nos. and the Patta Nos. He has also demonstrated that the notice directing the petitioners to produce appropriate documents also contains the description of the land which matches with the initial notice of September 2025 and therefore it would be too late in the day on the part of the petitioner to contend that the area in question does not fall within the Tribal Belt and Blocks.

¶136

By drawing attention of this Court to the initial notice dated 25.09.2025 the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that from the said date, more than 6 months have elapsed and in between, hearing was held from 15.10.2025 to 22.10.2025 and only thereafter the eviction notice has been issued.

¶137

He submits that there is full compliance with the direction of the Division Bench in the order dated 09.12.2019 and the subsequent direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 03.02.2020 in which, the order of the Division Bench was the subject matter of challenge. He has submitted that the aspect of giving reasonable time to the occupants to take recourse to appropriate remedy has been duly fulfilled inasmuch as almost 6 (six) months time was taken for completion of the proceeding followed by further 15 days time to vacate the premises.

¶138

The learned Standing Counsel has also highlighted the aspect of preserving lands earmarked as Tribal Belt and Block which is also a statutory requirement under Chapter X of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 which pertains to protection of backward classes.

¶139

Shri N. Goswami, the learned State Counsel has endorsed the submissions

¶140

Page No.# 14/16

¶141

advanced by the learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department. He has highlighted that all procedural safeguards have been given to the petitioners. By drawing the attention of this Court to the Power of Attorneys on which reliance has been made by the petitioners, he has submitted that from the same, it does not reveal that the petitioners are either landless or being erosion affected and those have been executed giving an omnibus power to the petitioners to deal with the land.

¶142

The rival contentions have been duly considered.

¶143

The initial notice was issued on 25.09.2025 whereby it was notified that the area in the schedule which is a part of the Tribal Belt and Block under Chapter X of the Regulation of 1886. It was stated in the notice that persons belonging to non-protected category have occupied certain plots of land within the Tribal Belt and Block of Pachaniapara Revenue village under the Azara Revenue Circle. There is also a mention of the communication dated 15.09.2025 whereby the Sub Divisional Commissioner was directed to conduct an enquiry on such illegal occupation of land under the Tribal Belt and Blocks. In course of such enquiry the said notice was issued categorically mentioning the name of the village, the Patta nos., the Dag nos. and the area involved whereby the persons in possession of the land thereunder were directed to submit required documents within the time specified as stipulated under Section 165 of the Assam Land & Revenue Regulation, 1886.

¶144

It is to be noted that there is no specific challenge per se to the aspect that the land in question is a part of the tribal belt and block. The subsequent notice dated 09.02.2026 clearly reveals that hearing was conducted from 15.10.2025 to 22.10.2025 in which certain documents like non-registered sale deed, Aadhaar Card, Voter Card, Ration Card, Gaon Pradhan Certificate, Erosion

¶145

Page No.# 15/16

¶146

affected Certificate were furnished. There is a clear finding that such document would not constitute any evidence to show that the incumbent falls under the protected class under Chapter X of the Regulation of 1886. The petitioners were accordingly granted 15 days time to vacate the premises.

¶147

A similar notice has also been issued on 27.02.2026 enclosing a list as Annexure A containing the particulars of the persons who are in possession along with the particulars of land under their possession. Though a submission has been made that the notice dated 27.02.2026 cannot be construed to be a notice on a individual basis, this Court is of the opinion that the said notice only conveys the decision that after hearing the petitioners and on perusal of the documents produced, the same could not convince the authority to come to a conclusion that the petitioners were within the protected class under Chapter X of the Regulation of 1886. The very fact that the said notice contains an enclosure as Annexure-A containing the details of the persons along with the areas under their possession would show that each of the persons were given a hearing which is also evident from the observation made that hearing was conducted from 15.10.2025 to 22.10.2025 in the office of the Co-District Commissioner, Jalukbari.

¶148

This court has also duly perused the order dated 03.02.2020 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 2121/2020 which had arisen from the PIL No. 78/2012. This Court is of the considered opinion that the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding giving adequate time has been duly complied with. This Court is also unable to accept the submissions made that the procedure adopted is summary in nature inasmuch as, the initial notice was issued on 25.09.2025 in which a full-fledged process of hearing was conducted leading to passing of the impugned order.

¶149

Page No.# 16/16

¶150

Under those facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that after giving all the procedural safeguards, the impugned decision has been arrived at and all the relevant factors have been taken into consideration. It is needless to state that while exercising certiorari jurisdiction, this Court is to see as to whether the relevant factors have been taken into consideration and the principles of natural justice has been adhered to. In the instant case, it clearly appears that the impugned decision is based on the relevant factors which is in sync with the requirements of Chapter X of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 and due opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioners.

¶151

In the conspectus of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that no case for interference is made out and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.

¶152

JUDGE

¶153

Comparing Assistant

Sorhab Ali and 39 Ors. v. the Govt of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sorhab Ali and 39 Ors. v. the Govt of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chanmahammad Ali and 134 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Nikhil Narayan Deb Choudhury Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Altaf Hussain and 6 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

M/S Samsir Uddin Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

M/S St Store Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

On the Death of MD Kaddus Ali His Son Namely Abdul Malek and 31 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 62 Ors.