Gauhati HC Questions Demolition of Private Homes in Goalpara, Flags Possible Misuse of Disaster Management Act
The Gauhati High Court found no prima facie case of imminent danger to justify demolishing houses on private land in Goalpara, and has reserved the question of compensation for adjudication if the respondents’ actions are found to lack legal authority.
Justice Devashis Baruah of the Gauhati High Court, on 11 September 2026, expressed serious reservations about the demolition of houses standing on private land in the Mornoi police station area of Goalpara district, Assam. The instructions placed before the court by the State’s counsel did not, prima facie, establish any imminent danger that could have warranted such drastic action. The court went further, observing that the episode appeared to be a prima facie misuse of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. With an interim order already in operation, the bench has now directed the District Commissioner and the Circle Officer to file independent affidavits and has kept open the question of whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation.
Twenty-One Residents of Three Villages Approach the Court
The twenty-one petitioners are residents of three villages — Khamarmanikpur (Magurmari), Tengabari, and Bhujmala Part-II — all falling within Mornoi police station limits in Goalpara district. They moved the writ petition before the Gauhati High Court after their houses were demolished. The petitioners are represented by Mr. S. Borthakur, Senior Advocate. The State of Assam, represented through the Commissioner and Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, the District Commissioner of Goalpara, and the Circle Officer of Matia Revenue Circle are the three respondents. Mr. S. S. Roy appears as Government Advocate for the respondents.
The petitioners filed an additional affidavit placing photographs of the demolition and the losses sustained on record. A copy was served on the Government Advocate on the same date.
What the State Placed Before the Court — and What It Did Not Show
On 11 September 2026, Mr. S. S. Roy placed certain instructions before the court. These comprised three documents: an enquiry report dated 20 June 2026, an order of the District Commissioner dated 23 June 2026, and para-wise comments dated 09 September 2026. The court received them and marked them as Exhibits X, Y, and Z respectively.
Justice Baruah examined these materials and found them wanting. The instructions did not, even at a prima facie level, demonstrate that there was any case of imminent danger that could justify the demolition of houses on private lands. The court's language was pointed: the action appeared to be a prima facie misuse of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.
The Disaster Management Act, 2005 is a central legislation that provides authorities with powers to respond to disasters and take preventive or remedial action. The court's observation that its invocation here was prima facie questionable goes to whether the demolitions fell within the scope of any lawful exercise of power under that statute, particularly when the affected structures stood on private land.
Court Reserves Compensation Question for Adjudication
The bench made clear that the question of compensation is live and will be adjudicated in these proceedings. The court directed that an affidavit in response to the petitioners’ additional affidavit be filed by the respondents, specifically because the court would “adjudicate on the question of compensation in the circumstance this Court holds that the action so taken by the Respondents more particularly the District Commissioner as well as the Circle Officer were not authorized by law.”
This direction signals that the court has not merely flagged a procedural concern. If the court concludes, after hearing full affidavits, that the demolitions lacked legal authorisation, the question of making good the losses suffered by the twenty-one petitioners will follow as a direct consequence.
To ensure complete and independent accounts, the court separately directed the District Commissioner and the Circle Officer to each file their own independent affidavits. The respondents are therefore not permitted to file a consolidated or jointly-sourced response; each official must account for their own role in the events leading to the demolitions.
Interim Protection Continues
An interim order had been passed in the matter at an earlier stage of the proceedings. Justice Baruah directed that the said interim order shall continue to operate until the next date of hearing. The matter has been listed for 13 October 2026.
Order
The Gauhati High Court, by its order dated 11 September 2026 in Jahidul Islam and 20 Ors v. The State of Assam and 2 Ors (WP(C)/4903/2026), received the State’s instructions — the enquiry report dated 20 June 2026, the District Commissioner’s order dated 23 June 2026, and para-wise comments dated 09 September 2026 — and marked them as Exhibits X, Y, and Z. The court directed the District Commissioner and the Circle Officer to file independent affidavits. The respondents were further directed to file an affidavit in response to the petitioners’ additional affidavit on the issue of losses suffered, since the court will decide compensation if the demolitions are found to have been unauthorised in law. The earlier interim order continues. The matter is next listed on 13 October 2026.