Gauhati HC questions demolition of 21 houses on private agricultural land in Assam

The Gauhati High Court has questioned the demolition of houses belonging to 21 residents of Assam's Goalpara district, observing that the action by revenue authorities appeared prima facie illegal, unauthorised and contrary to the principles of natural justice.

Justice Devashis Baruah made the observations while hearing a petition filed by Jahidul Islam and 20 others, whose houses were demolished on their respective agricultural lands.

The court sought an explanation from the Assam government on the circumstances that led to the demolition and specifically questioned what imminent danger had necessitated such drastic action.

The petitioners' counsel, Senior Advocate S Borthakur, submitted that notices were issued by the Circle Officer, Matia Revenue Circle, on September 5, directing the residents to demolish their houses within 24 hours or face legal action under Rule 6 of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, read with provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

However, the counsel submitted that the houses were demolished in the early hours of September 7, barely two days after the notices were issued, without providing the owners an opportunity of being heard.

The High Court expressed concern over the manner in which the authorities exercised their powers, observing that the action appeared prima facie illegal and unauthorised and violated the principles of natural justice protected under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

The court also examined provisions of the Assam Agricultural Land (Regulation of Reclassification and Transfer for Non-Agricultural Purpose) Act, 2015.

It noted that Section 3(iv) of the Act exempts a person from obtaining permission from the Deputy Commissioner where agricultural land not exceeding one bigha is used for constructing the person's own dwelling house, subject to the prescribed two-storey limit.

The court noted that the lands in question were patta lands belonging to the petitioners and questioned the basis on which the authorities had invoked such drastic powers.

The government advocate representing the District Commissioner and the Circle Officer was directed to obtain instructions and inform the court about the alleged imminent danger that prompted the demolition.

The petitioners were also allowed to file an additional affidavit detailing the demolition and the losses suffered by them.

Meanwhile, the court restrained the District Commissioner and the Circle Officer from taking any further action against the petitioners' lands pending further orders. The government advocate was directed to communicate the order to the concerned officials by telephone.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on September 11.