Assam Settlement Rules | Authorities Must Consider Individual Claims Before Evicting People From Reserved Land: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court has held that where a person receives a notice alleging unauthorised occupation of land reserved under Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, the competent authority must consider the person's representation and supporting documents and pass an individual speaking order determining the person's status before taking any further action under law.

Justice Manish Choudhury observed,

"This Court is of the considered view that when a noticee is served with a notice alleging unauthorised occupation on his part of any plot of land, which is reserved under any of the categories mentioned in Rule 18[2] of the Settlement Rules, the noticee is to be given due opportunity of placing his case before the authority by way of a representation, if he chooses to do so, and thereafter, the authority is obligated to give due consideration to such representation submitted in response to the notice qua the claim made by the noticee, and to all the documents, if any, submitted along with the representation in support of his claim, and thereafter, to pass a speaking order as regards the status of the noticee qua the plot of land stated to be under his occupation."

The ruling came in a writ petition filed by 74 residents of two vilages challenging notices issued by the Circle Officer alleging unauthorised occupation of land in the two Professional Grazing Reserve (PGR) villages.

The petitioners claimed that they had been rendered homeless during the Assam Movement in 1983 and were thereafter permitted by the authorities to settle in the area. They relied on certificates issued in 1983, electoral rolls, landholding certificates, revenue receipts and other documents to contend that they had been residing there for decades. They further argued that while the notices required them to submit documents in support of their claims, they did not indicate that the claim of each occupant would be considered individually. The petitioners also submitted that the certificates issued to them did not disclose that the land on which they had been allowed to reside was reserved as Professional Grazing Reserve land.

The State, on the other hand, submitted that the notices had been issued in accordance with the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, and were consistent with the procedure laid down in the judicial decisions referred to in the notices.

After considering the rival submissions, the High Court held that it found no infirmity in the issuance of the notices, observing that they were in conformity with the principles laid down by the Division Bench in Md. Salak Uddin v. State of Assam.

However, the Court noted that the petitioners had already submitted their individual representations along with supporting documents and that hearings had also been conducted. In such circumstances, it held that the authorities were now required to decide each representation individually by passing a reasoned speaking order and communicate the same to the concerned noticee before taking any further action under law.

Accordingly, the Court directed the authorities to dispose of each representation by passing an individual speaking order determining the status of each noticee. It clarified that only after such determination could any further action contemplated under law be taken. With these observations and directions, the writ petition was disposed of.

Case No.: WP(C) No. 3767/2026

Case Title: Manik Ali & 73 Ors. v. State of Assam & 3 Ors.

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 107

Click Here To Read Judgement