Showkat Ahmad and 158 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 9 Ors.

ASSAM 5:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER KARIMGANJ DIVISION SRIBHUMI P.O. AND DISTRICT-SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN - 788724 6:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM REVENUE AND DM DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 7:THE DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS AND SURVEY ASSAM 8:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER SRIBHUMI P.O. AND DISTRICT- SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN-788710 9:THE SETTLEMENT OFFICER SRIBHUMI P.O. AND DISTRICT-SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN- 788710 10:THE CIRCLE OFFICER RAMKRISHNANAGAR P.O. RAMKRISHNANAGAR DISTRICT- SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN -78816

¶189

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K N CHOUDHURY, MR K UDDIN,MR. A K AZAD,MR. N HAQUE,MR M HUSSAIN

¶190

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

¶191

Page No.# 13/16

¶192

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

¶193

ORDER

¶194

06.03.2026

¶195

Heard Shri KN Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri K. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri N. Das, learned State Counsel; Ms. P.R. Mahanta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department and Ms. M. Kalita, learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department.

¶196

The petitioners, who are 159 in numbers, are aggrieved by notices dated 02.01.2026 whereby they are directed to vacate the land within 30 days.

¶197

As per the facts projected, the petitioners are the settlement holders of land under Touzi No.14179/20 under the Karimganj Sub-Division. Few of the writ petitioners had instituted Title Suit No.221/1975 which was decreed on 21.09.1976. The said decree was subject matter of challenge in Title Appeal No.181/1979 preferred by the State which was dismissed on 20.07.1981. The petitioners have also relied upon a minutes of meeting dated 13.03.2009 on the aspect of creation of a revenue village.

¶198

Shri Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has also drawn the attention of this Court to an order dated 20.01.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in WA No.212/2019 in which it has been recorded that the cadastral survey of the land in question was not complete. He submits that under the said background, the impugned notices could not have been issued. He has also informed that while issuing notice vide order dated 21.01.2026, this Court has also recorded the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General that the eviction process would not be carried out till the returnable date.

¶199

Page No.# 14/16

¶200

Ms. P.R. Mahanta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department has submitted that the survey is going on and not completed. A similar submission has been made by Ms. Kalita, learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department, who has contended that the demarcation process is going on.

¶201

The rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been duly examined.

¶202

The contention of the petitioners is that the land in question is not forest land and this aspect gets fortified by the judgment and decree dated 20.01.1976 passed in Title Suit No.225/1975 which was also affirmed by the Appellate Court in Title Appeal No.181/1979 vide judgment dated 20.07.1981. the appeal was preferred by the State which was dismissed. There is nothing brought on record by the learned counsel for the respondents that there was any further appeal and therefore, it has to be presumed that the said judgment has attained finality. This Court is also apprised of the fact that which is also conceded by the learned counsel for the respondents that the survey for demarcation is going on. This Court has also noted the observation made by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the order dated 20.01.2023 passed in WA/212/2019 whereby a direction was given for completion of the cadastral survey.

¶203

This Court is also apprised that the action of the State to carry out eviction from forest land was the subject matter of challenge in various writ petitions which were dismissed. The matters were ultimately considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Khalek and Ors. Vs. State of Assam reported in 2026 INSC 140 . In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had approved the course of action to be adopted by the State Government for removing encroachment which contains sufficient procedural safeguards. It may

¶204

Page No.# 15/16

¶205

be mentioned that the State had proposed to constitute a Committee to look into the matter of making forest area encroachment free which also contemplated of giving due opportunity to the occupants. 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:

¶206

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

¶207

(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.

¶208

(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.

¶209

(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.

¶210

(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.

¶211

(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.

¶212

(vii) Occupation of a Gaon Panchayat in a forest is permissible if there is a

¶213

Page No.# 16/16

¶214

sufficient proof as per the Jamabandi Register maintained by the Forest Department or as provided under the Forest Rights Act.”

¶215

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is directed that the land which was the subject matter of the suit in respect of which a decree has been passed cannot be the subject matter of any eviction unless such decree is interfered with by a Higher Court. At the same time, as noted above, the survey is on for demarcation of the area in question. It is therefore, made clear that if after such exercise of demarcation, if any forest area outside the scheduled area of the suit land is found to be under the possession of the petitioners or for that matter any other individual, appropriate steps for eviction may be taken which however has to be done by meticulously following the procedure approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Khalek (supra). At this stage, the importance of preserving forest land as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the opening paragraph of the aforesaid case is to be kept in mind which is as follows:

¶216

“2. These appeals and the Writ Petitions raise before this Court a question of considerable, constitutional and environmental significance, namely the State’s obligation to protect reserved forest in discharge of its constitutional mandate and the manner in which such obligation must be fulfilled, when long standing human habitation is asserted within the forest land.”

¶217

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶218

JUDGE

¶219

Comparing Assistant

Showkat Ahmad and 158 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 9 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Showkat Ahmad and 158 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 9 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

Matiza Khatun and 221 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

M/S Deepak Construction Co. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Shri Ashok Kumar Sarma and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Nabajyoti Medhi and 6 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Bijaya Choudhury @ Bijaya Devi Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Smti Akali Devi and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.