Disposed

Moinul Hoque and 35 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC11 Feb 2026WP(C)/433/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Thirty-six residents of a forest village in Hojai challenged eviction notices issued by forest authorities. Relying on the Supreme Court's directions in Abdul Khalek, the High Court disposed of the writ petition directing authorities to follow that procedure, ordered status quo till a speaking order and expiry of notice, and vacated the interim order.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to comply with Supreme Court's Abdul Khalek directions; status quo maintained over land in petitioners' occupation until speaking order and notice period expire.

Moinul Hoque and 35 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors. — Land Acquisition | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/12

GAHC010010402026

2026:GAU-AS:2045

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/433/2026

¶6

MOINUL HOQUE AND 35 ORS. SON OF LATE KUTI MIYAN

¶7

2: SAMAR ALI SON OF LATE HAMID ALI

¶8

3: ABDUL HOQUE SON OF LATE SONA MIYAN

¶9

4: ABU BAKKAR WIFE OF LATE SONA MIYAN

¶10

5: FARIZ UDDIN SON OF LATE SONA MIYAN

¶11

6: ABDUL KADIR SON OF LATE SONA MIYAN

¶12

7: NOOR ISLAM

¶13

SON OF LATE SAFIQUL HOQUE

¶14

8: BADRUL ISLAM SON OF LATE SAFIQUL HOQUE

¶15

9: KAMRUL ISLAM SON OF LATE SAFIQUL HOQUE

¶16

10: TAHIR ALI

¶17

SON OF LATE SONAHAR ALI

¶18

Page No.# 2/12

¶19

11: KAPIL UDDIN WIFE OF LATE MAHAMMD ALI

¶20

12: SHARIF UDDIN SON OF LATE MAHAMMD ALI

¶21

13: AMIN ALI SON OF LATE YAKUB ALI

¶22

14: USMAN ALI SON OF LATE YAKUB ALI

¶23

15: EUSUF ALI SON OF YAKUB ALI

¶24

16: TAJ UDDIN SON OF LATE SUAKHI MIYAN

¶25

17: TAMIJ UDDIN

¶26

SON OF LATE SUAKHI MIYAN

¶27

18: RAMIJ UDDIN S/O LATE SUAKHI MIYAN

¶28

19: ABDUL MALIK SON OF LATE KUTU MIYAN

¶29

20: MAYARUN NESSA W/O LATE KUTU MIYA

¶30

21: BIBI AYESHA BEGUM W/O LATE SULTAN ALI

¶31

22: RAHIM UDDIN SON OF MUSADDAR ALI

¶32

23: RAJIB HUSSEIN SON OF RAHIM UDDIN

¶33

24: KHACHURA BEGUM W/O BOTOF MIYA

¶34

Page No.# 3/12

¶35

25: ABDUS SAMAD SON OF LATE HURMOT ALI

¶36

26: YUSUB ALI

¶37

SON OF LATE ABDUL HOQUE

¶38

27: IDRIS ALI SON OF ABDUL HOQUE

¶39

28: ASAID ALI SON OF ABDUL MIYAN

¶40

29: ANAMUL HUSSEIN SON OF LATE ISHAK ALI

¶41

30: ABDUL MALIK SON OF LATE ABDUL KHALIK

¶42

31: FAIJUL HOQUE SON OF LATE YAKUB ALI

¶43

32: TAJ UDDIN SON OF MAHAMMAD ALI

¶44

33: KHALID HUSSEIN SON OF LATE NOOR UDDIN

¶45

34: TOIBUR RAHMAN SON OF LATE MOJAHID ALI

¶46

35: SAFIQUR RAHMAN SON OF LATE MOJAHID ALI

¶47

36: BILAL AHMED SON OF LATE MOJAHID ALI ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-UDMARI-TANGIA P.O.- KARAIGURI DISTRICT-HOJAI ASSAM. PIN NO. 782440 VERSUS

¶48

Page No.# 4/12

¶49

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI -781006.

¶50

2:THE SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS DEPARTMENT ASSAM SECRETARIAT COMPLEX DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006.

¶51

3:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS

¶52

OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST ARANYA BHAWAN PANJABARI GUWAHATI 781037.

¶53

4:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER

¶54

SOUTH NAGAON DIVISION P.O. HOJAI ASSAM. PIN-782435

¶55

5:THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER

¶56

JAMUNA VALLEY RANGE DOBOKA DISTRICT HOJAI ASSAM. PIN-782440.

¶57

6:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER HOJAI SANKARDEV NAGAR ASSAM. PIN782442

¶58

¶59

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

¶60

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.J. Atia, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. S. Roy, Government Advocate Mr. D. Gogoi, Standing Counsel

¶61

Page No.# 5/12

¶62

Date on which Judgment was reserved : N/A

¶63

Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 12.02.2026

¶64

Whether the pronouncement is of

¶65

the Operative Part of the Judgment : No

¶66

Whether the full Judgment has been

¶67

Pronounced : Yes

¶68

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

¶69

Heard Mr. A.J. Atia, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners. I have also heard Mr. S.S. Roy, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 6 and Mr. D. Gogoi, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5.

¶70

Thirty-six (36) writ Petitioners joined together to file the instant writ petition challenging the notice dated 12.01.2026 issued by the Respondent Authorities and further seeking that the Respondent Authorities be restrained from disturbing the peaceful possession of the Petitioners and carrying out any demolition or eviction in respect to their houses and residential plots at Udmari Tangia Forest Village under Jamuna Valley Range of South Nagaon Forest Division, Hojai District.

¶71

The case of the Petitioners herein are that they have been

¶72

Page No.# 6/12

¶73

residing in the Udmari Tangia Forest Village under Jamuna Valley Range of South Nagaon Forest Division, Hojai District for many years. It is claimed by the Petitioners that the original pattadars through lawful and valid means have granted the Petitioners permission to reside upon the said lands and cultivate the lands.

¶74

On 12.01.2026, notices were issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, South Nagaon Forest Division, Hojai to the various Petitioners. The Petitioners apprehended that on the basis of the said notice dated 12.01.2026, the Petitioners would be evicted and as such, the Petitioners have approached this Court.

¶75

This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties including the counsel who appears on behalf of the Forest Department.

¶76

Mr. D. Gogoi, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Forest Department submitted that the said notices were issued in pursuance to the directions passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the Judgment dated 18.08.2025 passed in Writ Appeal No.251/2025 and Writ Appeal No.252/2025. He further submitted that against the said judgment passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court dated 18.08.2025, Special

¶77

Page No.# 7/12

¶78

Leave to Appeals were filed before the Supreme Court and vide a judgment dated 10.02.2026, the Supreme Court disposed of those appeals by issuing certain directions. The learned Standing counsel further submitted that in view of the said observations and directions made by the Supreme Court, the Forest Department now would take steps in accordance with the said directions passed.

¶79

This Court enquired with Mr. A.J. Atia, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners as to whether the lands in question wherein the Petitioners are residing fall within the reserved forest. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the lands under their occupation no doubt are reserved forest land but they were issued settlement certificates for temporary settlement under the Tonguya/Tangiya system in the year 1974.

¶80

This Court has duly perused the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Khalek and Others Vs. The State of Assam and Others dated 10.02.2026. A perusal of the said judgment reveals that while those appeals were pending before the Supreme Court, an additional affidavit was filed on 18.01.2026 by the State of Assam, the contents of which were reproduced in the said judgment. The Supreme Court at paragraph No.12 of the said judgment delineated the policy decision of the State of Assam to

¶81

Page No.# 8/12

¶82

remove unauthorized occupation from the reserve forest. In addition to that, the Supreme Court also observed at Paragraph No.13 that on behalf of the State of Assam, the learned Solicitor General has assured that the mechanism evolved by the State shall be complied with objectively and with fairness while taking action for removal of unauthorized occupation in the reserved forest.

¶83

Taking into account the said, this Court finds it relevant to reproduce paragraph Nos. 12 and 13 of the said judgment in the case of Abdul Khalek and Others (supra).

¶84

“ 12 . Thus, from perusal of aforesaid additional affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the following policy decision to remove unauthorised occupation from the reserved forest has been taken:

¶85

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

¶86

(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.

¶87

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

¶88

Page No.# 9/12

¶89

reserved forest area.

¶90

(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 revenue department. In such cases, revenue department shall decide the future course of action.

¶91

(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.

¶92

(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.

¶93

(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 Department or as provided under the Forest Rights Act.

¶94

Page No.# 10/12

¶95

13 . In our opinion, the course of action to be adopted by the State Government while removing the encroachment from the reserved forest contains sufficient procedural safeguards. The process sought to be adopted by the State Government for removal of encroachment conforms to the principles of fairness, reasonableness and due process. Learned Solicitor General has assured us that the mechanism evolved by the State shall be complied with objectively and with fairness while taking action for removal of unauthorised occupation in the reserved forests. The parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of land in occupation of the appellants/writ petitioners till speaking order is passed and till expiry of notice period of 15 days. All contentions are kept open to be agitated before the committee. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the claim of the parties, as the same has to be examined by the committee.”

¶96

In view of the observations made by the Supreme Court at Paragraph Nos. 12 and 13, it is the opinion of this Court that the instant writ petition can be disposed of in the similar manner thereby directing the Respondent Authorities to carry out the required procedure and steps in terms with the directions passed by the Supreme Court at Paragraph Nos. 12 and 13 in the case of Abdul Khalek and Others (supra) as quoted herein above.

¶97

Accordingly, the instant writ petition therefore stands disposed

¶98

Page No.# 11/12

¶99

of with directions upon the Respondent Authorities more particularly the Forest Department, Revenue Department, District Administration as well as the Police Authorities who are parties to the instant proceedings to comply as per the directions passed by the Supreme Court at Paragraph Nos. 12 and 13 in the case of Abdul Khalek and Others (supra) .

¶100

Mr. A.J. Atia, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submitted that some form of interim directions may be given.

¶101

At Paragraph No.13 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Khalek and Others (supra), the Supreme Court has categorically mentioned that the parties were directed to maintain status quo in respect of land in occupation till Speaking Orders are passed. The Petitioners therefore are also entitled to similar directions to the extent that the parties herein shall maintain status quo in respect to the land in occupation of the Petitioners till the directions in terms with Paragraph No.12 of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Khalek and Others (supra) are not complied with.

¶102

This Court has not decided on the merits of the inter-se

¶103

Page No.# 12/12

¶104

dispute while passing the instant judgment which shall be decided by the Committee to be constituted as per the judgment of the Supreme Court.

¶105

Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.

¶106

JUDGE

¶107

Digitally signed by Satyam Sharma Date: 2026.02.12 23:47:39 +05'30' Comparing Assistant

Moinul Hoque and 35 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moinul Hoque and 35 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nazim Uddin Tapadar Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Abdus Sobur Mondal Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Abdul Aziz Vs the State of Assam

Bhusan Kumar Singh Vs the State of Assam and Othrs

Akkas Ali and 5 Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Abul Kasem and 72 Ors. Vs Union of India and 9 Ors.