Proper Section 18 Notice Under Assam Land & Revenue Regulation Mandatory Before Evicting Illegal Occupants From Government Land: Gauhati High Court
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Gauhati Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi dismissed petitions by occupants resisting eviction from government land in Darrang, while granting the authorities liberty to initiate eviction proceedings afresh in accordance with law and vacating interim protection. The dispute arose after officials issued notices calling upon the occupants to produce allotment documents, indicating that non-production could lead to cancellation, even as the State treated the land as government property intended for public projects. Recording that the occupants were in possession of land “admittedly government land” and that the earlier notice was limited to production of allotment papers, the Court clarified that any move to make government land encroachment-free must be preceded by a proper notice under Section 18 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886.
The State contended that only translated or typed copies of documents were filed and no original or photocopies were annexed. It was submitted that no records indicated allotment of land to the petitioners. The Revenue Department stated that certain land had been handed over to public institutions and relied on a “Handing Over and Taking Over” certificate.
The Court recorded, “All these 3 writ petitions being connected, are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment and order. The subject matter involves eviction of the petitioners from certain plots of land.” It observed, “The claim of the petitioners is that due to certain flood in the year 1950, they are rehabilitated in a Tea Garden area in a village called Saloipara.”
On the documentary evidence, the Court stated, “Though the claim is that such rehabilitation was done by invoking the Rules of 1950 and in support thereof, certain documents have been enclosed to the writ petition, there is not even a single document, the copies / photocopies of which have been annexed.” It further recorded, “This Court has found that translated / typed copies of certain documents have been enclosed.”
Regarding pleadings, the Court observed, “In a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court has to adjudicate a matter on the basis of pleadings supported by an affidavit and the relevant documents, duly verified are to be placed before this Court.” It stated, “As noted above, the petitioners chose not to file any rejoinder affidavit to the affidavit-in-opposition and also did not take any steps to bring on record the original copies or even photocopy thereof to substantiate their claim.”
On the nature of possession, the Court recorded, “Having said that, it appears that the petitioners are in possession of certain lands which are admittedly government land.” With regard to notice, it stated, “Though a contention has been advanced that such notice may be construed to be a notice under Rule 18, this Court is of the view that to ensure transparency and fairness, a proper notice under Section 18 is required to be issued to the incumbents who are in illegal occupation and possession of Government land if there is a requirement to make such land encroachment free.”
The Court concluded, “In that view of the matter, it becomes difficult for this Court to accept the projection that lands were indeed allotted to the petitioners in terms of the Rules of 1950.”
Also Read: High Courts Cannot Nullify Ongoing Arbitral Proceedings While Substituting Arbitrator: Supreme Court
The Court directed, “In view of the above, while this Court is of the view that no case for interference is made out by the petitioners, it is provided that while the writ petitions are dismissed, the respondent authorities would have the liberty to initiate a process for eviction strictly in accordance with law and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of Md. Salak Uddin (supra). All the writ petition stands disposed of in the manner indicated above. Interim orders stand vacated.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Shri K.K. Mahanta, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. N. Begum, Advocate
For the Respondents: Shri H. Sharma, Addl. Senior Government Advocate, Assam; Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Standing Counsel, Revenue Department; Ms. P.R. Mahanta, Standing Counsel, Technical Education Department
Case Title: Mahim Chandra Nath and 9 Ors vs The State of Assam and Ors
Neutral Citation: GAHC010019392014
Case Number: WP(C)/6485/2014 (with connected matters)
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi
