Gauhati HC Directs Individual Speaking Orders Before Any Eviction of 74 Boginadi PGR Villagers
Seventy-four residents of two PGR villages in Lakhimpur, settled since 1983 as Assam Movement victims, secured a ruling that eviction can follow only after individualised, reasoned orders on each representation.
The Gauhati High Court has ruled that the Circle Officer, Kadam Revenue Circle, Lakhimpur, must pass a separate speaking order on each individual representation submitted by 74 residents of 1 No. Boginadi PGR Revenue Village and 2 No. Boginadi PGR Revenue Village before any eviction action can proceed. Justice Manish Choudhury, sitting singly, disposed of Manik Ali and 73 Ors v. The State of Assam and 3 Ors (WP(C)/3767/2026) on 22 July 2026, holding that the authority is obligated to consider each representation and the accompanying documents individually and to communicate the speaking order to each petitioner before taking any further step under Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886.
The Dispute Before the High Court
The 74 petitioners are residents of 1 No. Boginadi and 2 No. Boginadi PGR Revenue Villages in Kadam Mouza, Lakhimpur district, Assam. They filed a joint writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asserting a common cause of action: all of them had been rendered homeless and landless during the disturbances of the Assam Movement in 1983 and were thereafter allowed by the State authorities to settle in those two villages.
To support their occupation, the petitioners produced certificates dated 14 February 1983 identifying them as people affected in the disturbances, voter identity cards showing enlistment in electoral rolls from 1985, and land-holding certificates. They also produced revenue receipts issued by the Mouzadar, Kadam Mouza, evidencing payment of land revenue. The petitioners additionally pointed to the establishment of lower primary, middle English, and senior secondary schools, Anganwadi centres, a masjid, a cremation ground, electricity connections provided by APDCL, and benefits extended under PMAY schemes within the two villages.
Their grievance arose from similar notices dated 16 June 2026 issued by the Circle Officer (Respondent No. 4) to each of them. The notices required the petitioners to appear at the Circle Office on 30 June 2026 at 11:00 a.m. and to submit documents supporting their claims within 15 days, failing which an eviction order would be passed ex-parte without further communication.
What the Eviction Notices Said
Each notice stated that the petitioner concerned was occupying land “in violation of rules” under the name of 1 No. Boginadi P.G.R. and 2 No. Boginadi P.G.R. under Kadam Revenue Circle. The notices invoked Rule 18(2) and Rule 18(3) of the Settlement Rules under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, along with a Government Notification No. L-18(2), Assam Government Notification No. RLR-162/2008/25 dated 6 February 2010, and Revenue and Disaster Management Department Office Memorandum No. R.R. 188/2011/P.T./21 dated 15 July 2015.
The notices also cited the Supreme Court's decision in Jagpal Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others, Civil Appeal No. 1132/2011 arising out of SLP (C) No. 3101/2011, reported in (2011) 11 SCC 396, and a Division Bench judgment of the Gauhati High Court in Md. Salak Uddin v. The State of Assam and Others, W.P.(C) No. 1057/2022, dated 27 June 2024, reported in 2024 4 GLT 857.
The notices warned that if a petitioner was found to be an illegal encroacher during inquiry, that person would have to vacate and remove all crops and structures at his or her own expense within 15 days of the hearing. Failure to do so would result in eviction proceedings by the administration, with recovery of eviction costs from the petitioner.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the court was whether the notices themselves, and the process they set out, satisfied the requirements of natural justice and constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 19, and 21 before the State could proceed to evict long-standing occupants of PGR land.
Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules applies where a person has entered into possession of government khas land, waste land, or land previously reserved for roads, roadside purposes, grazing of village cattle, or other public purposes, and where there is no bona fide claim of right involved. Under that sub-rule, the Deputy Commissioner may eject or order vacation forthwith and may sell, confiscate, or destroy any crop or building erected without authority. Rule 18(3)(a), which applies to all other cases not falling under Rule 18(2), prescribes publication of a notice requiring the occupant to vacate within fifteen days.
The parties agreed that if the two villages are already notified as Professional Grazing Reserve, Rule 18(2) would be the applicable provision.
The petitioners' Senior Counsel, Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, pressed the argument that the notices did not contemplate individual consideration of each petitioner's claim. He contended that the petitioners were in long, continuous, and uninterrupted possession of small plots after being allowed to settle there by the District Commissioner (Respondent No. 3) in recognition of their displacement in 1983, and that the 1983 certificates did not disclose that the land in question was reserved as PGR land. Counsel for the State respondents, Mr. H.K. Hazarika and Mr. A. Bhattacharyya, maintained that the notices conformed to the Settlement Rules and to the procedure indicated in the cited judgments.
How the Bench Reasoned
Justice Choudhury turned first to the Division Bench ruling in Salak Uddin (supra). That bench had held that revenue authorities cannot be permitted to unilaterally decide whether an occupier has a bona fide claim of right, because such a determination involves adjudication of both law and facts. Proceeding without an opportunity to the occupier would violate the principles of natural justice and, in turn, Articles 14, 19, and 21. The Division Bench had observed that prior notice before initiation of proceedings under Rule 18(2) is the mandate of law to save the sub-rule from being constitutionally invalid on procedural grounds.
The Division Bench in Salak Uddin had also observed that even in respect of land previously reserved for grazing of village cattle — where settlement is barred — there may exist disputes about boundary, de-reservation, or prior settlements granted before the reservation took effect. The examples were described as illustrative, with the court emphasising that varied circumstances depending on situational variations may arise, making the issuance of notice and formation of subjective satisfaction essential to conform to Articles 14, 19, and 21.
Justice Choudhury then referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Abdul Khaleque and Others v. State of Assam and Others, 2026 INSC 140, which arose from notices to alleged encroachers inside reserved forest areas. The Supreme Court had found no infirmity in the State's process there because the State had undertaken that after scrutiny of documents, a speaking order would be passed and served on the concerned person, giving fifteen days' notice to vacate before any removal action.
Drawing from both precedents, Justice Choudhury held that when a noticee is served with a notice alleging unauthorised occupation of land falling under any category mentioned in Rule 18(2), the noticee must be given due opportunity to place his case before the authority by way of a representation. The authority is then obligated to give due consideration to that representation and to all documents submitted along with it, and to pass a speaking order as regards the status of the noticee in relation to the plot stated to be under his occupation. Only after that speaking order is passed and communicated can further action contemplated under law proceed.
Having found that the petitioners had already submitted individual replies with supporting documents in response to the notices, and that a hearing had already taken place, the court noted that the responsibility now lay with the Circle Officer to dispose of each representation individually by a speaking order.
Order
Justice Manish Choudhury disposed of the writ petition with the direction that the Circle Officer, Kadam Revenue Circle, must pass a speaking order individually on each representation submitted by the 74 petitioners, considering the representation and the accompanying documents in each case. The speaking order so passed must be communicated to each petitioner immediately thereafter. It is only after determining the status of each noticee in this manner that further action under the law may be taken. No order as to costs was made.