Disposed

Siraj Uddin and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC15 Sept 2026WP(C)/3926/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a land settlement application under Mission Basundhara 2.0. The Court held that the petitioners can submit a fresh application via the Sewa Setu Portal with requisite documents, without adjudicating the merits of their possession claim.

What did the court decide?

Petition closed; petitioners allowed to file a fresh application for land settlement via Sewa Setu Portal complying with existing guidelines.

Siraj Uddin and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors. — Land Acquisition | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010153612026

2026:GAU-AS:13747

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/3926/2026

¶6

SIRAJ UDDIN AND ANR

¶7

SON OF LATE ABUAL SHEIKH, R/O- VILL- SHUKLATARI, LAKHIGANJ, P.O.BILASIPARA, P.S.- BILASIPARA, DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN- 783348.

¶8

2: AMZAD HUSSAIN SON OF LATE ABUAL SHEIKH R/O- VILL- SHUKLATARI LAKHIGANJ P.O.- BILASIPARA P.S.- BILASIPARA DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783348

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, SETTIEMENT BRANCH, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006,

¶11

2:THE DIRECTOR OF LAND ACQUISITION REQUISITION AND REFORMS ASSAM GUWAHATI-32

¶12

3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DISTRICT- DHUBRI ASSAM. PIN-783301 4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER BILASIPARA REVENUE CIRCLE DHUBRI PIN- 78334

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S C DAS, P BURAGOHAIN,D R BONGSHIARY,MR. H DAS,B SARKAR

¶15

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

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Date : 16.09.2026

¶19

Heard Mr. S.C. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners; Ms. N. Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue & Disaster Management Department for the respondent nos. 1 & 2; and Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 3 & 4.

¶20

The petitioners have approached this Court by the present writ petition stating that the petitioners, have been in long, continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted possession of a plot of land measuring 4 Kathas & 5 Lessas covered by Dag no. 287 [old] / 315 [New] at Revenue Village – Suklatari, Mouza - Bilasipara, Bilasipara Revenue Circle, District – Dhubri [‘the subject-plot’, for short]. According to the petitioners, the subject-plot is presently a Government khas and ceiling surplus land. According to the petitioners, the subject-plot, was earlier a part of Khatian no. 21 wherein the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners namely Abual Sheikh, son of Poran Munchi was reflected as recognized occupant.

¶21

It is the case of the petitioners that when the State Government notified Mission Basundhara 2.0 Scheme for settlement of Government khas and ceiling surplus land in favour of the landless persons, the petitioners herein through a son of the petitioner no. 2 applied for settlement of the subject-plot it being khas and ceiling surplus land, on 31.12.2024 and the said application was received vide Acknowledgment no. RTPS/SKCSL/ 2024/2155859. However, on 03.08.2025, the application submitted by a son of the petitioner no. 2 on behalf of the petitioners was shown to be rejected on the ground there was dispute as regards possession of the subject-plot.

¶22

Page No.# 3/4

¶23

The petitioners have contended that the rejection of the Application dated 31.12.2024 was made by a non-speaking order. The petitioners have submitted that before rejection of the application, the applicant therein was not afforded any opportunity of hearing and the reason recorded was without any basis and the same was not as per situation prevalent in the ground in respect of the subject-plot.

¶24

Ms. Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department has submitted, on the basis of instructions received, that after rejection of the Application dated 31.12.2024 for settlement of khas and ceiling surplus land under Mission Basundhara 2.0, it would still be open for the petitioners to submit a fresh application under Mission Basundhara Scheme which is stated to be in currency.

¶25

Ms. Bordoloi has submitted an Office Letter bearing no. E786345/I/1555646/2026 dated 14.05.2026 received from the Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Government of Assam wherein it is mentioned that the settlement of Government khas and ceiling surplus land under Mission Basundhara 2.0 has been rolled out perpetually via the Sewa Setu Portal, as per Government Notification eCF no. 565802/I/772778/2024 dated 15.10.2024. It has been further mentioned that an applicant can apply afresh for land settlement through the Sewa Setu Portal as per the existing guidelines, despite rejection of the earlier application. In response, Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners may be allowed to submit an application afresh along with all the supporting documents.

¶26

As it is open for the petitioners to file an application for settlement of Government khas and ceiling surplus land afresh, the petitioners have the option of filing an application for settlement of Government khas and ceiling surplus land afresh by complying with all the requisite formalities as per the existing guidelines through the Sewa Setu Portal. Considering the fact that the petitioners’ earlier Application dated 31.12.2024 was rejected, this Court deems it proper to close of the writ petition, allowing the petitioners to submit an application for settlement of the subject-plot afresh by complying with all the requisite formalities as per the existing guidelines through the Sewa Setu Portal.

¶27

Page No.# 4/4

¶28

In the event the petitioners submit a fresh application, the respondent authorities while considering the application, shall duly consider the petitioners’ claim regarding the long, continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the subject-plot and the facts asserted by the petitioners as regards reflection of the name of predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners in Khatian no. 21. It is needless to mention that consideration of the petitioners’ application must be disposed of by way of a reasoned order. In the event the petitioners feel themselves aggrieved by the manner of disposal of the application, the petitioners will be at liberty to seek appropriate remedy as permissible under the law.

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

Comparing Assistant

Siraj Uddin and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siraj Uddin and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases