Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1928 (GAU)

Abdul Jabbar S/o Abdul Khalek v. Union of India

2025-11-28

KARDAK ETE

body2025
JUDGMENT : KARDAK ETE, J. 1. Heard Mr. M. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. B. M. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 6738/2025, and Mr. A. R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 6764/2025. Also heard Mr. P. N. Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General for the State respondents. 2. The petitioners have assailed the order dated 21.11.2025, passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Nagaon Division, Nagaon, whereby the representations of the petitioners have been rejected (through identical individual orders), pursuant to the order of Division Bench of this Court dated 18.08.2025, passed in WA No. 251/2025 and WA No. 252/2025, and directed the petitioners to vacate the forest land on or before 29.11.2025, failing which eviction proceeding shall be carried out forthwith by the forest department. 3. Having considered the issues involved and the order put to challenge is identical and similar on facts and law, both these 2 (two) writ petitions are heard together and, as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, same are disposed of at the motion stage considering the order proposed to be passed (infra). 4. In WP(C) No. 6738/2025, the petitioners, 101 in numbers, and in WP(C) No. 6764/2025, the petitioners, 66 in numbers, have raised the common grievance who claims to be the landless persons other than the land presently under their occupation alleged to be under the Lutumai Reserve Forest in the District of Nagaon, Assam. 5. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioners is that they were issued notice for eviction alleging illegal occupation in the Lutumai reserve/protected forest area vide dated 08.10.2025 by the Divisional Forest Officer, Nagaon Forest Division directing them to submit any claim/representation or supporting documents, if any, to justify their occupation of the said forest land within 15 (fifteen) days. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners in WP(C) No. 6738/2025 have submitted joint representation on 22.10.2025 before the Divisional Forest Officer, however, t, the petitioners in WP(C) No. 6764/2025 have not submitted any representation. Thereafter, the petitioners approached this Court by way of writ petitions, being WP(C) No. 6290/2025 & WP(C) No. 6167/2025, challenging the notice of eviction dated 21.11.2025. This Court, vide orders dated 06.11.2025 & 17.11.2025, disposed of the writ petitions with the following observation: “14. Thereafter, the petitioners approached this Court by way of writ petitions, being WP(C) No. 6290/2025 & WP(C) No. 6167/2025, challenging the notice of eviction dated 21.11.2025. This Court, vide orders dated 06.11.2025 & 17.11.2025, disposed of the writ petitions with the following observation: “14. It is observed that if any representation is received from any of the noticees/petitioners herein by the respondent no. 4, the respondent no. 4 shall examine such representations and the supporting documents in justification of the parcels of land he/she is in occupation. The order so passed by the respondent no. 4 shall be communicated to the petitioners / representationists forthwith thereafter. The respondent no. 4 shall examine whether the parcels of land under the occupation of the noticees/petitioners fall inside or outside the boundaries of Lutumari Reserved Forest declared by the Notification dated 07.08.1928. It is further observed that if any parcel of land under the occupation of any noticee/petitioner is found outside the boundaries of the Lutumari Reserved Forest, no eviction exercise, as contemplated in the Notice dated 08.10.2025, shall be undertaken by the respondent no. 4. It is further observed that if the parcels of land under the occupation of the noticees/petitioners are found inside the boundaries of Lutumari Reserved Forest, then the respondent no. 4 shall carry out the exercise to clear the Lutumari Reserved Forest areas in accordance with law and as per due procedure.” 6. By an order dated 21.11.2025, the Divisional Forest Officer, Nagaon Division, Nagaon, has disposed of the representations of the petitioners pursuant to the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 18.08.2025, passed in WA No. 251/2025 & WA No. 252/2025, and rejected the representations of the petitioners by common and identical orders (though issued individually to the petitioners). Hence, these writ petitions. 7. Mr. M. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 6738/2025, and Mr. A. R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 6764/2025, have submitted that the impugned orders have been passed without considering the materials/documents submitted by the petitioners. The consideration is only based on the purported joint verification by the departments which has carried out behind the back of the petitioners. A. R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 6764/2025, have submitted that the impugned orders have been passed without considering the materials/documents submitted by the petitioners. The consideration is only based on the purported joint verification by the departments which has carried out behind the back of the petitioners. It is submitted that even after the clear direction by the Court dated 06.11.2025 & 17.11.2025 directing the respondents to examine the representation and the supporting documents which the petitioners have submitted for justification of the claim of the petitioner with regard to the occupation of the land, no consideration of such documents or representations has been made by the respondent authorities. While referring to the impugned orders, the learned Senior Counsel, submits that a bare perusal of the same clearly indicates that the basis of the order is only on the purported joint verification which reflects its perfunctory exercise as the rejection is on the ground that the petitioners are alleged to be within the notified area of Lutumai Reserve Forest, which was notified in the year 1928 under the provisions of Assam Forest Regulation, 1891. Therefore, submits that the petitioners, having been settled in the area for last 40 years and above by validly constructing their residential houses under the government scheme, they cannot be evicted without due process of law. 8. Mr. P. N. Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General, submits that as per the joint verification report, which is based on boundary coordinates of Lutumai Reserve Forest and corresponding KML image and all other relevant records, the petitioners are illegally residing within the Lutumai Reserve Forest. Therefore, the petitioners are liable to be evicted from the said Lutumai Reserve Forest as they could not place any documents and establish their right of occupation. 9. Having submitted above, Mr. P. N. Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly submits that the authorities are ready to consider the case of the petitioners afresh in view of the fact that the joint verification, which is the basis for rejection of representation, appears to be only by the authorities in the absence of the petitioners. Accordingly, he submits that the respondent authorities may be directed to have a joint verification, including the petitioners, to verify the claim of the petitioners. 10. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also considering the fair submissions of Mr. Accordingly, he submits that the respondent authorities may be directed to have a joint verification, including the petitioners, to verify the claim of the petitioners. 10. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also considering the fair submissions of Mr. P. N. Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General, and without going into the claims and counter claims or merits of the matters, as well as in view of the orders passed by the Division Bench and Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, I am of the considered view that the interest of justice would be served if the respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioners afresh by providing an opportunity to the petitioners to submit their documents in support of their claims with regard to the occupation of the land and also to have a joint verification including the petitioners so as to ascertain the actual facts of the claim of occupation and as to whether the petitioners are occupying the land within the Lutumai Reserve Forest. 11. Accordingly, the respondent authorities are directed to conduct a joint verification of the entire area claimed and occupied by the petitioners in the presence and participation of the petitioners. The petitioners shall also be provided an opportunity to submit documents in support of their claims. Thereafter, the respondent authorities shall consider the claim of the petitioners in accordance with the law. 12. It is made clear that in the event the petitioners are found to be occupying land within the notified Lutumai Reserve Forest, they shall be evicted by providing reasonable time preferably 14 (fourteen) days notice to vacate the land. 13. It is further directed that the petitioners shall submit their claims and objections and the supporting documents within a period of 7 (seven) from today. The exercise of physical joint verification, as directed herein above, shall be conducted within 7 (seven) days thereafter. The entire process and exercise, so directed herein above, shall be completed within an outer limit of 35 days from today. 14. Consequently, the impugned order dated 21.11.2025, passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Nagaon Division, Nagaon, is hereby set aside. 15. Writ petitions are disposed of in terms above.