Alimuddin and 52 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

50: HABIBUR RAHMAN S/O-LT. SAHED ALI PETITIONER 1 TO 50 ALL THE ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SIDHAGURI P/O- BURGAON P/S- MAYONG DISTRICT- MORIGAON ASSAM.PIN-782411

¶61

51: MAHEJ ALI

¶62

S/O- CHAMCHUDDIN

¶63

52: HURMUJ ALI S/O- SAMAR ALI

¶64

53: SHIRAJ ALI S/O- LT. ABBAS ALI PETITIONER 51 TO 53 ALL ARE R/O VILLAGE PATEKIBORI P/S- MAYONG DISTRICT- MORIGAON ASSA VERSUS

¶65

Page No.# 5/9

¶66

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, JANATA BHAWAN ASSAM SECRETARIAT COMPLEX, DISPUR, GAUHATI- 781006.

¶67

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM

¶68

WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT JANATA BHAWAN ASSAM SECRETARIAT COMPLEX DISPUR GAUHATI- 781006. 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER MORIGAON DISTRICT DISTRICT MORIGAON ASSAM 4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER MAYONG REVENUE CIRCLE JAGI BHAKATGAON P.S- MAYONG DISTRICT MORIGAON ASSAM

¶69

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J AHMED, H G DAISY,R BEGUM,MS A HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE, GA, ASSAM,SC, WATER RESOURCE

¶70

Page No.# 6/9

¶71

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶72

ORDER

¶73

02.02.2026

¶74

Heard Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶75

2. This writ petition have been filed by the petitioners who claims to be in possession of the land for cultivation purpose under the various Dag nos situated at village- Morisuti Tup, Patekibori under Pakoria Mouza, P.S.- Mayong, District- Morigaon, Assam.

¶76

3. The petitioners are in occupation of the land since their father/forefathers and they have paid Touzi Bahira revenue to the Department since 1969. The Department collected the revenue till the year 2022. Thereafter, the Department had refused to accept the revenue and the petitioners were shocked to receive the eviction notices issued asking them to evict the land under the acquisition, failing which eviction proceeding shall be carried out under the Rule 18(1) of the Regulation.

¶77

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore submits that no prior notice has been issued, permitting the petitioners to submit their representations. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. Mr. R. M. Das, learned Standing Counsel Water Resources Department has submitted before the Court that the land in question is for the Government land and reserved for Water Resources Department and the same is now necessary for purposes of Water Resources Department.

¶78

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that whether the land is to be utilized for Water Resources Department, no notification was issued and the

¶79

Page No.# 7/9

¶80

same ought to have been issued by the Department and further notice has to be given to the writ petitioners.

¶81

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the writ petition, it is seen that there is a categorical averment made in Para 2 of the writ petition that the petitioners are using the said plot of land for cultivation purposes and are also paying Touzi revenue to the Government and this land have been in the possession of the father/forefathers of the petitioners for last several years. It is, therefore, evident that these lands are not allotted to the writ petitioners. The petitioners also do not dispute that these are government land and for use of the same they are paying Touzi revenue. The only grievance is that no specific notice has been issued to the petitioners to vacate that land. 8. There is no averment in the writ petition that the petitioners had applied for allotment of the said land for cultivation purposes or for their use, in spite of the land being under their occupation and their father/forefathers for the last several years. The only grievance of the petitioners before the Court is that no specific prior notice has been issued before issuance of the eviction notice. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the order of the Supreme Court rendered in Abul Khayer and ORS. –vs- State of Assam & ORS., in Special Leave to Appeal (C) D No(s). 2121/2020, where certain guidelines were issued as well as order dated 26.09.2024, passed in WP(C) 5034/2024 where similar order was passed by this Court.

¶82

9. The orders passed by the Apex Court is:-

¶83

“Permission to file Special Leave Petitions is granted.

¶84

The principal grievance of petitioners before this court is that peremptory directions have been issued by the High Court which are likely to be construed as having been issued after recording finding of fact that the petitioners and similarly placed occupants in the concerned area are unauthorized occupants.

¶85

Page No.# 8/9

¶86

This apprehension, in our opinion, is misplaced. For, the tenor of the order which is impugned in these Special Leave Petitions is merely to direct the Deputy Commissioner to proceed against the unauthorized occupants in accordance with law – which presupposes that the Deputy Commissioner must examine the claim of each occupant on case to case basis and after recording satisfaction in light of evidence produced before him proceed to pass appropriate order(s) as per law.

¶87

We may add that, if that order is adverse to the occupants, the Deputy Commissioner must give reasonable time to the occupants to take recourse to appropriate remedy as may be permissible in law

¶88

In other words, the Deputy Commissioner shall decide the

¶89

proceedings uninfluenced by any of the observations made by the High Court in the impugned judgment and order.

¶90

It will be open to the Deputy Commissioner to request the High Court to extend the timeline specified in terms of the impugned judgment and order, which request we are certain would be considered appropriately by the High Court. Besides this, nothing more is required to be clarified. These Special Leave Petitions are disposed of accordingly.

¶91

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.”

¶92

10. Considering the submissions made and the orders passed by the Apex Court, as well as by co-ordinate bench of this Court, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition may not be kept pending and it can be disposed of by permitting the writ petitioners to file their individual representations along with all necessary documents before the Respondent No. 3 within seven days from today. The Respondent No. 3 will thereafter examine each case individually and pass appropriate orders within 30 days. Therefore, the petitioners will positively file their application by 9^th of February, 2026 and the DC Morigaon (Respondent No.3) will thereafter pass appropriate orders by 25^th of February 2026. Since the petitioners are represented by their respective counsel no separate notices is required to be issued to the petitioners at the time of hearing till 25^th of February or till the time the DC passes the order as

¶93

Page No.# 9/9

¶94

directed. No process of eviction in respect of the Dag No’s. of the writ petitioners respectively shall be carried out.

¶95

11. DC will examine the matter himself or by any other competent officer authorize by him (not below the rank of Circle officer).

¶96

JUDGE

¶97

Comparing Assistant

Alimuddin and 52 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alimuddin and 52 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 3 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

Anwar Hussain Laskar Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Jamir Uddin Barbhuiya and Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Shri Bhabesh Das Vs the State of Assam

Ariful Islam Vs the State of Assam

Abul Kalam Azad and 9 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Atiqur Rahman and 16 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.