Introduction:
The Gauhati High Court, in Manik Ali & 73 Others v. State of Assam & 3 Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 107, reaffirmed the importance of procedural fairness while dealing with allegations of unauthorized occupation of reserved land under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. Justice Manish Choudhury held that when notices are issued alleging encroachment on land reserved under Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules, the competent authority must consider the representation and supporting documents submitted by each noticee individually and pass a reasoned speaking order before initiating any further action under law.
The case arose after seventy-four residents of two villages challenged notices issued by the Circle Officer alleging unauthorized occupation of land classified as Professional Grazing Reserve (PGR). The petitioners claimed that they had been rehabilitated in the area by government authorities after being displaced during the Assam Movement in 1983. They asserted that they had been residing on the land for several decades and had consistently been recognized by various public authorities through official documents such as electoral rolls, landholding certificates, revenue receipts and rehabilitation-related certificates. The principal grievance before the Court was not merely the issuance of the notices but the apprehension that the authorities would proceed against them without individually examining their claims and supporting documents.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioners contended that they were not illegal encroachers but persons who had been permitted by the authorities to settle in the concerned villages after losing their homes during the Assam Movement. They relied upon certificates issued in 1983, electoral records, landholding certificates, revenue receipts and other official documents to demonstrate continuous possession and residence over several decades. According to them, the notices invited submission of documents but failed to indicate that each occupant’s claim would be independently examined. They further argued that when they were permitted to occupy the land, the authorities had never disclosed that it formed part of a Professional Grazing Reserve. Therefore, they asserted that any adverse action without proper consideration of their individual circumstances would violate principles of natural justice.
The State defended the notices, submitting that they had been issued strictly in accordance with the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. It argued that the notices were consistent with the procedure laid down by the Gauhati High Court in Md. Salak Uddin v. State of Assam and afforded the occupants an opportunity to produce documents supporting their claims. According to the State, the notices were only the first step in the statutory process and did not warrant judicial interference.
Court’s Judgment:
The Gauhati High Court declined to interfere with the notices themselves, holding that there was no legal infirmity in their issuance. Justice Manish Choudhury observed that the notices were in conformity with the legal principles laid down by the Division Bench in Md. Salak Uddin v. State of Assam and therefore could not be quashed merely because allegations of unauthorized occupation had been made.
However, the Court emphasized that issuance of a notice is only the beginning of the statutory process. Once a noticee submits a representation along with supporting documents, the competent authority assumes a legal obligation to examine the claim carefully and objectively. The Court held that every person accused of unauthorized occupation is entitled to a meaningful opportunity to establish the legality of his or her occupation before any coercive action is taken.
The Bench noted that the petitioners had already filed individual representations supported by various documents, including rehabilitation certificates, electoral records, landholding certificates and revenue receipts. It also recorded that hearings had already been conducted by the authorities. In such circumstances, the next statutory step was for the competent authority to evaluate the evidence produced by each noticee independently instead of adopting a common or mechanical approach.
Justice Choudhury observed that the authority must pass an individual speaking order in respect of every noticee. Such an order should consider the specific documents relied upon by the individual claimant, examine the legality of the claim, and clearly record the reasons for accepting or rejecting it. The Court stressed that a speaking order is an essential safeguard against arbitrary exercise of statutory power and enables affected persons to understand the basis of the decision while also facilitating effective judicial review, if required.
The Court further clarified that only after the status of each noticee is individually determined through a reasoned order can the authorities proceed with any action contemplated under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation and the applicable Settlement Rules. Any action taken without first deciding the representations through reasoned orders would be contrary to the principles of natural justice.
Accordingly, the High Court directed the competent authority to dispose of every representation separately by passing an individual speaking order determining the legal status of each noticee concerning the land under occupation. These orders were directed to be communicated to the respective occupants before any further proceedings are initiated under law.
While declining to invalidate the notices, the judgment reinforces that administrative authorities exercising statutory powers over land disputes must strictly adhere to procedural fairness. The decision balances the State’s authority to protect reserved lands with the fundamental requirement that every affected individual receives an adequate opportunity of hearing and a reasoned decision before facing adverse consequences.