The Gauhati High Court has ruled that unregistered sale deeds confer no right over Government land reserved for public purpose, but at the same time, clarified that non-fulfilment of the pre-28.06.2001 occupation threshold under Clause 14.4 of the Assam Land Policy, 2019, cannot be the sole ground to reject settlement applications for other waste lands in Guwahati. The Court held that the unregistered sale deeds of 1992 confer no right, title or interest upon the Petitioners over the land which is reserved for the Pragjyotishpur Medical College and Hospital, and Rule 15 of the Settlement Rules bars settlement of land reserved for public purposes.
The Court said that the Speaking Orders dated June 12, 2026, insofar as they direct eviction under Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules do not call for any interference, and the Petitioners are not entitled to restoration of the electricity connection disconnected by the APDCL. The Speaking Orders are interfered with only to the extent of rejecting the settlement applications on the ground that the Petitioners could not prove continuous occupation prior to June 28, 2001, which the Court held was a misconceived reading of Clauses 14.2, 14.3 and 14.4 of the Assam Land Policy, 2019.
Accordingly, the High Court directed the District Commissioner, Kamrup (M) and the Revenue Department are directed to reconsider the Petitioner’s settlement applications for any waste land within Guwahati City other than Dag No. 97, treating the earlier Sub-Divisional Land Advisory Committee approvals as approvals for such other waste lands. The Petitioners are granted 30 days to vacate Dag No. 97 and remove their belongings, failing which the Respondents may carry out the eviction drive, while the District Administration and Revenue Department are required to complete the reconsideration exercise within 45 days of service of the certified copy of the judgment.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Devashis Baruah observed that the unregistered sale deeds, under no circumstances, can confer any right upon the Petitioners in respect of the lands in question, though they may be used for collateral purposes to prove possession. The Court placed reliance on Rule 15 of the Settlement Rules, which provides that no person shall have any right to settlement merely because he is in occupation of land not included in any lease granted by the State Government. Rule 16 was also noted, which prohibits any person from entering into possession of waste land until a lease has been issued or written permission granted by the Deputy Commissioner.
The Court further observed that the land in question, being reserved for the T.B. Hospital and now for the Pragjyotishpur Medical College and Hospital, would not come within the ambit of ‘Waste Land’ as defined in Rule 1(2)(b) of the Settlement Rules. The Court also took note of the judgment of the Division Bench in Md. Salak Uddin (2024 SCC OnLine Gau 921), which held that lands previously reserved for public purposes are outside the scheme of granting settlement. The Court further observed that the approvals or recommendations of the Sub-Divisional Land Advisory Committee do not confer any right until the lease is granted. The Court also noted that Clause 14.3 of the Assam Land Policy, 2019, stipulates that the State Government will not consider settlement of any Government land in Guwahati city merely on the ground of occupation, and that the discretion of the State, though seemingly unfettered, is always subject to the principles of proportionality.
The Court also took note of the judgment of the Division Bench in Monmil Boro (2025 SCC OnLine Gau 4901), which dealt with similar eviction proceedings pertaining to the same Dag No. 97 and held that the appellants therein cannot be settled with the land they were occupying, either under Rule 16 of the Settlement Rules or in terms of Clause 14 of the Assam Land Policy, 2019.
Briefly, the case involves two petitions filed by Hamida Khatun and Firoza Begum, who claim to be erosion-affected and landless persons originally hailing from Nalbari and the undivided Kamrup district in Assam. In 1992, both Petitioners purchased possession of two individual plots of Government land, based on unregistered Deeds of Sale. The land was originally reserved for the T.B. Hospital and is now reserved for the newly constructed Pragjyotishpur Medical College and Hospital.
Notices were issued to the Petitioners under Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, alleging them to be illegal encroachers. Earlier writ proceedings culminated in a common judgment, directing the Petitioners to submit representations, after which the Deputy Commissioner was to pass speaking orders. The Speaking Orders rejected both the Petitioners’ claim of bona fide right and their proposals for settlement. Separately, the electricity connection to the Petitioners’ houses was disconnected on June 05, 2026, by the APDCL, prompting the second petition seeking restoration of electricity.
