The Gauhati High Court has held that merely occupying Government land for a long period does not create a legal right to have that land allotted or settled in favour of the occupant. The Court observed that, at the highest, a person occupying Government land may be considered for settlement if the claim satisfies the applicable land policy and is consistent with public interest. The ruling was delivered while considering a writ petition challenging a notice requiring the petitioner's husband to vacate a portion of Government land that was being used to access their privately purchased property. At the same time, the Court found that the eviction notice itself could not be sustained because it had been issued without providing the occupant an opportunity to be heard.
The dispute arose after the petitioner and her husband purchased a plot of land in Guwahati. According to the petitioner, the adjoining Government land was being used for ingress and egress to their property. The petitioner and her husband had also submitted an application seeking settlement of a small portion of the Government land. The petitioner complained that the application had remained pending and had not been considered by the authorities. Subsequently, the authorities issued a notice requiring her husband to vacate the Government land within three days. The petitioner challenged this notice before the High Court and also sought consideration of the application for settlement.
The petitioner maintained that the Government land was being used as an access route to her property and that the application seeking settlement had never been rejected by the authorities. She also questioned the manner in which the eviction notice had been issued. According to her case, no opportunity had been given to explain why the land was being used or why the notice should not be acted upon. The absence of a prior opportunity to show cause became one of the issues considered by the High Court while examining the validity of the notice.
The respondents, on the other hand, disputed the petitioner's claim concerning the Government land. The State informed the Court that the land had been reserved for road purposes. It was also submitted that the petitioner's occupation had resulted in the narrowing of the public road. The authorities therefore treated the occupation as an encroachment on Government land and had issued the notice requiring the petitioner's husband to vacate it.
The State also referred to the Assam Land Policy, 2019 while opposing the petitioner's claim for settlement. According to the authorities, an application for settlement of Government land was required to be submitted through the Sewa Setu portal. The question before the Court was therefore not simply whether the petitioner had been occupying the Government land, but also whether such occupation could itself create any entitlement to settlement and what procedure was required for consideration of an application for settlement.
Justice Devashis Baruah examined the circumstances in which the eviction notice had been issued. The Court noted that the petitioner was admittedly in occupation of the Government land covered by Dag No. 732. Despite this admitted occupation, the authorities had not provided an opportunity to the petitioner before directing her husband to vacate the land. The Court therefore considered the notice to be contrary to the requirements contained in Rule 18(3) of the Assam Settlement Rules as well as the principles of natural justice.
The High Court consequently held that the notice requiring the petitioner's husband to vacate the land within three days could not be sustained in law. The Court specifically found that an occupant could not be directed to vacate Government land without being provided an opportunity in accordance with the applicable rules. The notice was therefore set aside and quashed. However, the Court's decision to invalidate the notice did not mean that the petitioner or her husband acquired any right over the Government land.
The Court separately considered the petitioner's claim that her long occupation of the Government land and its use as an access route should permit settlement of the land in her favour. On this issue, the Court made it clear that mere occupation of Government land does not confer a right to allotment. The fact that a person has remained in occupation for a long period does not, by itself, create an entitlement to have Government land settled in that person's favour.
The Court referred to Clause 14.3 of the Assam Land Policy, 2019. That provision states that settlement of Government land in Guwahati city or other town areas cannot be considered merely because a person is occupying such land. The provision applies irrespective of the length of occupation or the period for which the land has allegedly been encroached upon. The High Court therefore made it clear that prolonged possession cannot by itself become the basis for a claim to Government land in urban or town areas.
The Court observed that, although the petitioner or her husband could not claim an automatic right to settlement merely because of occupation, the possibility of their application being considered under the applicable land policy remained open. The Court stated that, at the highest, the petitioner or her husband could be considered for allotment if the claim satisfied the land policy and was consistent with public interest. Thus, the judgment distinguished between a right to settlement and the possibility of consideration for settlement under the prescribed policy.
The Court also examined the nature and location of the Government land in question. The material before it indicated that the land had been reserved for road purposes. This was significant because the petitioner claimed that the same land was being used to gain access to her privately purchased property. The High Court considered the trace map placed before it and found that, prima facie, ingress and egress to the petitioner's property appeared to be through the Government land.
While considering the access issue, the Court stated that if the Government land could not be settled in favour of the petitioner's husband, the authorities could provide a passage to the petitioner for ingress and egress to her property because the land had been reserved for road purposes. The Court therefore recognised the need for the authorities to consider the access issue even if settlement of the Government land itself was not permissible.
The Court, however, did not conclusively decide that the Government land was the petitioner's only possible access route. The authorities had disputed the claim that the land in question provided the only access to the petitioner's property. Since this factual issue remained disputed, the High Court left it to the respondent authorities to examine and determine. The Court observed that the authorities would be the best judge of whether another access to the property existed and what arrangement could be made concerning ingress and egress.
The High Court consequently adopted two separate positions in relation to the petitioner's claims. First, it held that the eviction notice could not stand because it had been issued without providing the necessary opportunity to the occupant and was therefore contrary to Rule 18(3) of the Assam Settlement Rules and the principles of natural justice. Second, it rejected the proposition that prolonged occupation itself created a right to settlement of the Government land. The question of any possible settlement was left to be considered under the applicable land policy and procedure.
The Court accordingly set aside and quashed the impugned eviction notice. At the same time, it granted liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh application seeking settlement of the land through the Sewa Setu portal, subject to the condition that the land was recorded as waste land. The Court did not direct the authorities to grant settlement. Instead, it permitted the petitioner to pursue the prescribed process for consideration of her claim.
The authorities were directed to consider any fresh application in accordance with the Assam Land Policy, 2019. While examining the application, they were also directed to take into consideration whether the petitioner had any other access to her property. Thus, the question of access was to form part of the authorities' consideration along with the legal and policy requirements governing settlement of Government land.
The High Court further clarified that quashing the existing notice did not permanently prevent the authorities from taking action against the occupation. The authorities remained at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings for eviction in accordance with law. Therefore, the quashing of the notice was based on the procedural defect in the manner in which it had been issued and did not amount to a declaration that the petitioner or her husband had a permanent right to remain in possession of the Government land.
The Court's ruling thus dealt with both the procedural validity of the eviction notice and the substantive claim for settlement of Government land. On the procedural aspect, the Court found that the notice could not survive because the occupant had not been given an opportunity before being directed to vacate. On the substantive aspect, the Court made it clear that occupation, regardless of its duration, did not automatically confer a right to allotment or settlement. Any claim for settlement had to be considered under the Assam Land Policy and applicable procedure.
The case arose from WP(C)/4456/2021, titled Dr. Maushumi Barooah v. State of Assam & 4 Ors. The petition was considered by Justice Devashis Baruah. The Court's ruling recorded that the Government land involved was being claimed as an access route to the petitioner's property, while the authorities maintained that it had been reserved for road purposes and that the occupation had narrowed the public road.
The High Court's order therefore did not grant ownership or settlement of the Government land to the petitioner. Instead, it protected the petitioner from the particular eviction notice because the prescribed procedural safeguards had not been followed, while simultaneously clarifying that long occupation did not itself create any right to Government land. The petitioner was permitted to pursue a fresh settlement application through the prescribed Sewa Setu procedure if the land qualified for such consideration, and the authorities were required to examine the claim in accordance with the Assam Land Policy, 2019 and the question of alternative access to the petitioner's property.
The Court also left open the authorities' power to take fresh eviction action in accordance with law. Consequently, the quashing of the notice did not prevent future lawful proceedings concerning the Government land. The central finding remained that occupation alone, even if prolonged, could not be treated as conferring an entitlement to settlement, particularly in light of the specific provisions of the Assam Land Policy, 2019. The case therefore concluded with the existing eviction notice being quashed, the petitioner being given liberty to follow the prescribed settlement procedure, and the authorities being left to determine the questions of settlement, public interest, road reservation and access in accordance with the applicable rules and policy.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.