Gauhati HC: 26 Years of Occupation Confers No Right to Government Land Settlement Under Assam Land Policy 2019

Gauhati High Court dismisses writ challenging land allotment to a third party, holding that mere occupation of Government land creates no enforceable right to settlement under the Assam Land Policy, 2019.

Justice Devashis Baruah, sitting singly at the Gauhati High Court, on 22 July 2026 dismissed a writ petition filed by Sudhir Paul, a resident of Bilasipara in Dhubri district, who had sought to set aside the land settlement granted to a private third party over a plot he claimed to have occupied since 2001. The Court held that Clause 14.3 of the Assam Land Policy, 2019 explicitly provides that no right accrues to an occupier of Government land merely by virtue of that occupation. Paul's application for settlement under Mission Basundhara 3.0 had also been rejected before the hearing concluded, leaving him with no subsisting statutory claim to press before the Court. While dismissing the petition, the Court granted him specific latitude to challenge that rejection separately and extended the limitation period for a civil suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 to account for the time during which an interim order was in force.

The Land Dispute at Chirakuta Village

The land in question measures 2 Bighas 4 Kathas 0 Lechas and is identified as Dag No. 312 (new)/Dag No. 11 (old), Patta No. 168 (new), at Chirakuta Village Part-I under Chapar Revenue Circle, District Dhubri, Assam.

Sudhir Paul claimed to have been in possession of approximately 2 Bighas 3 Kathas of this plot since 2001, having constructed a dwelling house there and paying Touzi Mouza charges. He sought formal settlement of the land in his name through two successive applications under the Government's Mission Basundhara scheme.

His first application, made under Mission Basundhara 1.0 on 10 December 2022, was rejected on 11 August 2023. He then filed a fresh application under Mission Basundhara 3.0 on 6 December 2024. That application was pending at the time he filed the writ petition.

In the meantime, on 15 July 2025, Respondent No. 6 — Manik Ali, a resident of Chirakuta Part-I — was granted settlement over the very land Paul occupied, and the land was mutated in Ali's favour by the Co-District Land Advisory Committee (CDLAC). Paul submitted a representation against this allotment on 2 August 2025. When that representation went unaddressed, he approached the High Court.

The Legal Question: Does Long Occupation Create a Settlement Right?

Paul's writ petition rested on a single factual premise: that he had been in continuous occupation of the land for 26 years, and that this longstanding occupation should have led to settlement in his favour rather than in favour of a third party.

The Court addressed this argument directly by reference to Clause 14.3 of the Assam Land Policy, 2019. That clause, the Court noted, categorically stipulates that there is no right of the occupier of Government land to obtain settlement merely because he is in occupation of that land.

By the time the matter came up for hearing, the Government Advocate representing Respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 informed the Court that Paul's Mission Basundhara 3.0 application had also since been rejected. Paul's counsel accepted this fact. Accordingly, Paul held no pending statutory application for settlement at the date of the hearing.

The Court found that with Clause 14.3 operating against the claim, and with no subsisting application under the Mission Basundhara scheme, Paul had failed to make out any case for the Court to disturb the allotment granted to Manik Ali on 15 July 2025.

The Contempt Case and Alleged Dispossession

A further complication arose from events after the writ petition was filed. On 3 September 2025, the High Court had passed an interim order directing parties to maintain status quo. Paul's counsel submitted that on 9 September 2025 — six days after the interim order — Paul was dispossessed from the land. He had consequently filed Contempt Case (C) No. 523/2025, alleging wilful and deliberate violation of the 3 September 2025 order.

The Court acknowledged that this contempt matter was a separate proceeding and did not adjudicate on it in this judgment. The Court was careful to record, however, that its observations on the limitation issue (discussed below) should not be read as any finding that Paul was in fact dispossessed on 9 September 2025. That fact, the Court stated, must be proved before the competent court of civil jurisdiction.

Limitation Relief Under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act

Though the writ petition was dismissed, the Court extended a procedural protection to Paul in recognition of what it described as his having “bonafidely litigating the present proceedings.”

Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides a suit remedy for a person dispossessed of immovable property, but carries a limitation period of six months. The Court directed that if Paul chooses to file such a suit, the period from 3 September 2025 until the date of this judgment shall be excluded when computing the six-month limitation period. This protection was granted because an interim status quo order was in force throughout that period.

The Court was explicit that this direction does not prejudge whether Paul was dispossessed, or when. Those are questions for the civil court.

Liberty to Challenge Mission Basundhara 3.0 Rejection

The Court also recorded that its dismissal of the writ petition shall not prejudice or preclude Paul from separately challenging the rejection of his Mission Basundhara 3.0 application, if he chooses to do so. That rejection was a distinct administrative action, and the Court left that avenue expressly open.

Outcome

The writ petition was dismissed. The settlement and mutation of the land in favour of Manik Ali, effected by CDLAC order dated 15 July 2025, was left undisturbed. Paul retains the liberty to challenge his Mission Basundhara 3.0 rejection in separate proceedings, and the limitation period for any Section 6 suit he may file is to be computed with the period from 3 September 2025 to 22 July 2026 excluded.