WP(C)/5081/2026 of ANOWAR HUSSAIN AND 2 ORS Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS on 15 September 2026

ORDER

16.09.2026

Heard Ms. S. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department, Government of Assam for the respondent no. 1; and Mr. N. Goswami, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 2, 3 &

4.

2. The petitioners have approached this Court by the present writ petition on the ground that the petitioner no. 1 has been served with a Notice dated 20.08.2026 alleging that the petitioner no. 1-noticee is in unauthorized occupation of a Government land, covered by Dag no. 166, at Village – Alomganj Part-IV, Gauripur Revenue Circle, District – Dhubri, Assam.

3. The petitioners are grandsons of one Late Kejal Bewa, wife of Late Meda Munshi. It is the case of the petitioners that a plot of land under Dag no. 28 was allotted in favour of their predecessor-in-interest, Late Kejal Bewa and on being so allotted, Late Kejal Bewa and her family entered into its possession and started cultivating land. Subsequently, the plot of land at Village – Alomganj Part-IV, Revenue Circle – Gauripur Revenue Circle, District –

Dhubri, Assam has been re-numbered from Dag no. 28 to Dag no. 166. It is the further case of the petitioners that the family has paid land revenue up to the year 2009. After the death of Late Kejal Bewa, her successors-in-interest including the petitioners herein are in possession of the said plot of land.

4. Mr. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department, Government and Mr. Goswami, learned Junior Government Advocate have conjointly submitted that in response to the impugned Notice dated 20.08.2026, the petitioners have already submitted their Representation before the respondent no. 3 on 02.09.2026 giving the reasons as to why they should not be termed as unauthorized occupants. They have fairly submitted that as some of the grounds raised in this writ petition, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, are not agitated in the Representation dated 02.09.2026 [Annexure-IV to the writ petition], the petitioners may raise those grounds before the respondent no. 3. They have further submitted that as the Representation already submitted by the petitioner on 02.09.2026 and the additional Representation, if any, submitted by the petitioners, would be given due consideration by the respondent no. 3 vis-à-vis the aspects mentioned in the impugned Notice dated 20.08.2026, the writ petition may be disposed of allowing the petitioners to submit an additional Representation before the respondent no. 3 if they want to raise some additional grounds before the respondent no. 3 for consideration, before conclusion of hearing.

5. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the projections made in this writ petition, this Court is of the considered view that to adjudicate on the claims made by the petitioners, and the counter claims made by the respondent authorities, questions of facts would fall for determination, which is ordinarily not to be adjudicated in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. As against the petitioners’ contention that they are in occupation of the parcel of land within old Dag no. 166/new Dag no. 28 on the strength of raiyoti khatian vis-à-vis the allegation made against them as unauthorized occupants of Government khas land, the respondent no. 3 can arrive at determination of such disputed questions of fact, on the basis of relevant revenue records and the materials placed before him by the contesting parties.

6. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that instead of keeping his writ petition pending, the same can be disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 3 to take into consideration the grounds raised by the petitioners in the Representation dated 02.09.2026 as well as the additional grounds, if any, raised by the petitioners in an additional Representation, which is to be filed by the petitioners before the respondent no. 3 within a period of ten days from today. After affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners and the other stakeholders, the respondent no. 3 shall bring the proceeding initiated by the impugned Notice dated 20.08.2026 into finality by passing a speaking order. It is accordingly ordered. The speaking order to be passed, is to be communicated to the petitioners immediately thereafter. It is further observed that if for any reason, the petitioners find the speaking order to be prejudicial to their interests, there shall not be any coercive action against the petitioners for a period of one month from the date of passing of the speaking order. It is needless to observe that if the petitioners are aggrieved in any manner by the speaking order to be passed, they would be at liberty to avail appropriate remedy as permissible under the law.

7. This order disposes of the writ petition. No cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant