Assam Settlement Rules | Revenue Authorities Can't Evict Encroachers From Private Land: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court has held that the power of ejectment under Rule 18 of the Assam Settlement Rules is confined to the categories of land specified under Rule 18(2) and cannot be exercised in respect of private patta land. [2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 102]

Justice Devashis Baruah presiding over the case, held, "It is the opinion of this Court that the power conferred by the Deputy Commissioner or any officer authorized on his behalf to carry out any eviction/ejectment would be only limited to the lands specified in Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules."

"It is the further opinion of this Court that if a meaning is ascribed that private lands would come within the scope of Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules, it would not only empower the Deputy Commissioner to confiscate or destroy any crops raised or any building or other construction erected standing over the private lands which do not belong to the State, but also would empower the Revenue Authorities to adjudicate pure civil dispute between private parties," Justice Baruah added.

The above observations were made by the Gauhati High Court in a case where the petitioners challenged an order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Udalguri refusing to initiate eviction proceedings under Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules.

The case arose out of proceedings under the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1956, whereby the petitioners challenged an order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Udalguri declining to initiate proceedings under Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules. The petitioner-company submitted that although the land was registered in its favour and the record of rights was corrected, private persons had entered into possession and raised constructions. It contended that the Respondent Authorities were duty bound therefore to hand over the clear and unencumbered possession of the land.

The Revenue Department submitted that Rule 18 applies only to the lands specified under Rule 18(2) and not to private patta land. It further contended that if the petitioners claimed encroachment over their land, they had to take recourse to the remedies available under law.

Examining Rule 18, the High Court held that the categories of land specified under Rule 18(2) make it clear that "lands which belong to a proprietor, land holder and settlement holder is outside the ambit of the lands specified in Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules."

The Court noted that after the land was registered in the name of Bahipukhuri Tea Estate and the record of rights was corrected, "Any encroachment upon the said land by any person would be purely a dispute between the Petitioners and the encroacher."

The Court further observed, "This Court observes that once the land in question have been recorded in the name of the Petitioner Company on the basis of the order dated 17.11.1992 and the records of rights were corrected, the jurisdiction of the Revenue Authorities to interfere/intermeddle with the possession of the lands stood ousted."

Holding that the Additional Deputy Commissioner was justified in declining to initiate proceedings under Rule 18(3) of the Settlement Rules, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. However, considering that the petitioners had been "bonafidely litigating before this Court", it held that they would be entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 while computing limitation for preferring proceedings before the competent Civil Court, if so advised.

Case Name: Dhunseri Tea and Industries Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Assam & 57 Ors.,

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 102

Case Number: WP(C) No. 959 of 2018

Click Here To Read Judgement