The Gauhati High Court has held that merely being in occupation of Government land for a long time does not confer any right to have the land allotted, and at best the occupant may be considered for allotment subject to the land policy and public interest.

Justice Devashis Baruah observed, “This Court also cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that merely being in occupation of Government land, there is no conferment of right to be allotted the land. At best, it may be a case wherein the Petitioner or her husband could be considered for allotment subject to the land policy and public interest.”

The observation came in a writ petition challenging a notice directing the petitioner's husband to vacate a portion of Government land which they were using for access to their property. The petitioner had also sought consideration of an application for settlement of that land.

The petitioner and her husband had purchased a plot of land in Guwahati and claimed that the adjoining Government land was being used for ingress and egress to their property. An application seeking settlement of a small portion of that Government land had also been submitted, but according to the petitioner, it remained unconsidered. The authorities later issued a notice requiring the land to be vacated within three days under Rule 18(3) of the Settlement Rules.

The petitioner submitted that the Government land was being used for ingress and egress to her property and that the application seeking settlement of the land had not been rejected. She also challenged the notice on the ground that no opportunity to show cause had been given.

The respondents stated that the land had been reserved for road purposes and that the petitioner's occupation had narrowed the public road. The State further submitted that, under the Assam Land Policy, 2019, an application for settlement was required to be filed through the Sewa Setu portal.

The High Court, while examining the matter, first held that the eviction notice could not be sustained. It noted that the petitioner was admittedly in occupation of the Government land and that no opportunity had been given before directing her husband to vacate it.

“The said notice is not only contrary to Rule 18(3) of the Settlement Rules, but also violates the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner who admittedly is in occupation of the land covered by Dag No. 732 and therefore without providing an opportunity to the petitioner, the said Notice could not have been issued asking the petitioner's husband to vacate the land. Under such circumstances, the notice dated 01.09.2021 cannot be sustained in law.”

The Court, however, made it clear that the petitioner's occupation of Government land did not by itself confer a right to allotment. It referred to Clause 14.3 of the Assam Land Policy, 2019, which states that settlement of Government land in Guwahati city or other town areas would not be considered merely on the ground that a person was in occupation of such land, irrespective of the period of occupation or encroachment.

The Court also took note of the material showing that the Government land had been reserved for road purposes. At the same time, on examining the trace map, it found that prima facie ingress and egress to the petitioner's purchased land was through the Government land.

“Under such circumstances, it is the opinion of this Court that if the Government land in question cannot be settled with the Petitioner's husband, the authorities can very well provide a passage to the Petitioner for ingress and egress to the Petitioner's land inasmuch as the said is reserved for road.”

Since the claim that this was the only access to the petitioner's property was disputed, the Court left the issue to the respondent authorities.

“It is the opinion of this Court that the Respondent Authorities would be the best Judge to decide the same.”

Accordingly, the High Court set aside and quashed the impugned notice. It granted liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh application seeking settlement of the land through the Sewa Setu portal, provided the land was recorded as waste land.

The authorities were directed to consider the application keeping in mind the Assam Land Policy, 2019 and whether the petitioner had any other access to her property.

The Court also clarified that setting aside the notice would not prevent the authorities from taking fresh steps for eviction in accordance with law.

Case No.: WP(C)/4456/2021

Case Title: Dr. Maushumi Barooah v. State of Assam & 4 Ors.

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 150

Click Here To Read Judgement