Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1409 (GAU)

Ekbal Khan S/O Kuddus Khan v. State of Assam

2025-08-21

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

body2025
ORDER : SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J. Heard Shri B. D. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri J. Handique, learned State Counsel and Ms. G. Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department. 2. As per the facts projected, the petitioners, who are 36 in nos. are flood/ erosion affected persons connected to of river Bhelengi in the district of Barpeta forcing them to move to Bhatkuchi Reserve of Jania Mouza under Baghbar Revenue Circle in the district of Barpeta. The petitioners also stake claim on a scheme named “Chief Minister’s Special Scheme for Rehabilitation in Assam” which was notified by notification dated 12.03.2015 whereby homeless people like the petitioners were sought to be rehabilitated. It is submitted that though, pursuant to the said scheme some survey were made and recommendations were also made for 384 nos. of families, the petitioners were not given any benefit of the said survey. The petitioners are also aggrieved by the eviction notices. It is submitted that though, pursuant to the said scheme some survey were made and recommendations were also made for 384 nos. of families, the petitioners were not given any benefit of the said survey. The petitioners are also aggrieved by the eviction notices. Accordingly, the present petition has been filed with the following relief:- “It is therefore prayed that your Lordship's would be this petition, call for the records, pleased to admit issue rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the impugned order dated 10-07-2015 passed by the Recovery Officer Sub -Regional Office, Tinsukia, purportedly in compliance of the order of this Hon'ble High Court in W.P (C) No. 3551 of 2015 shall not be quashed and further as to why the respondent Authorities shall not be directed to decide first as to whether the nature of employment of the employees of the Jyoti Bidyapith attract the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Act, 1952 before proceeding decide about the liability Bidyapith under the said of Act, to why the impugned actions Provisions further to the Jyoti and as of the respondent Assessing Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Tinsukia for the first time dated 13-05-2015 requesting Regional the Recovery Office Tinsukia Officer Sub to recover the amount of Rs.3,56,508/- (Rupees Three Lakhs fifty six thousand five hundred and eight) from Jyoti Bidyapith as per the said Act for the period from April, 1999 to March 2004 and the Notice of demand dated 26-05-2015 issued by the Recovery Officer of the respondent Authority demanding the aforesaid amount for the aforesaid period from Jyoti Bidyapith shall not be quashed as without Jurisdiction and as to why the respondent authorities shall not be directed to forbear from giving effect to their aforesaid impugned actions and after causes that may be records and hearing be pleased to make and/or pass orders as your fit and proper. such cause or shown, perusing the parties, further the rule absolute further or Lordship's may other seem. AND It further disposal of the prayed that pending rule, the impugned demand vide demand Notice dated 05-issued by 2015 the 26-Recovery Officer of the respondent authority may be stayed or shall not be given effect to. And for this act of grace, the petitioner shall ever pray.” 3. AND It further disposal of the prayed that pending rule, the impugned demand vide demand Notice dated 05-issued by 2015 the 26-Recovery Officer of the respondent authority may be stayed or shall not be given effect to. And for this act of grace, the petitioner shall ever pray.” 3. Shri Goswami, the learned counsel has submitted that they are entitled to a fair and equal treatment by giving benefit under the Scheme. On the contrary, the petitioners have been served with notices dated 03.01.2017 informing that they were encroaching grazing land and they were directed to vacate the same. It is submitted that the petitioners being considered under the Scheme which was introduced for people who are victims of flood and erosion, such move for eviction is neither justified nor reasonable. 4. Shri J. Handique, learned State Counsel has however submitted that the present land over which the petitioners were occupying are grazing land which cannot be either occupied or even be allotted. In this connection, he has placed reliance on the case of Jagpal Singh Vs State of Punjab reported in (2011) 11 SCC 396 . So far as the scheme dated 12.03.2015 is concerned, he has submitted that the Scheme has been withdrawn and therefore there is no question of consideration under the said Scheme. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Singh (supra) has clearly laid down grazing land (VGR) are to be kept encroachment free as those are community lands and under no circumstances, those are to be re-reserved for any allotment. For ready reference, the relevant observations are extracted herein below: “23. Before parting with this case we give directions to all the State Governments in the country that they should prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorised occupants of the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat/poramboke/shamlat land and these must be restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the common use of villagers of the village. For this purpose the Chief Secretaries of all State Governments/Union Territories in India are directed to do the needful, taking the help of other senior officers of the Governments. The said scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of such illegal occupant, after giving him a show-cause notice and a brief hearing. For this purpose the Chief Secretaries of all State Governments/Union Territories in India are directed to do the needful, taking the help of other senior officers of the Governments. The said scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of such illegal occupant, after giving him a show-cause notice and a brief hearing. Long duration of such illegal occupation or huge expenditure in making constructions thereon or political connections must not be treated as a justification for condoning this illegal act or for regularising the illegal possession. Regularisation should only be permitted in exceptional cases e.g. where lease has been granted under some government notification to landless labourers or members of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or where there is already a school, dispensary or other public utility on the land." 6. As regards the claim to be considered under the Scheme under notification dated 12.03.2015, this Court after taking into consideration that the Scheme has been withdrawn, no directions can be issued for such considerations. 7. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is not in a position to grant any relief to the petitioners. 8. At this stage, Shri Goswami, the learned counsel submits that there cases for rehabilitation may be considered in under the existing land policy. 9. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is provided that if the petitioners apply for such allotment under the existing land policy, the same may be considered in accordance with law. The applications, if filed are to be disposed of expeditiously and preferably within an outer limit of 90 days. 10 . Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. It is however provided that the petitioners be afforded a period of at least 15 (fifteen) days to vacate the land.