The Gauhati High Court recently intervened by issuing a stay on the eviction notices issued by the Assam Government to 43 families residing on the bank of the Bharalu river. The court made this decision after considering the documents attached to the writ petition concerning the refugee status of the petitioners, determining that they have presented a prima facie case warranting interim protection.

The single judge bench of Justice Manish Choudhury observed:

“Having regard to the projections made on behalf of the petitioners on the basis of the documents annexed to this writ petition, as already alluded hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the petitioners have been able to make out a prima facie case for interim protection. Accordingly, it is observed that till the returnable date, the eviction notices, all dated 13.02.2024 [Annexure-8 colly], shall remain suspended.”

The petitioners asserted that they are the legal representatives or heirs of individuals who were Indian citizens and migrated to India from their previous places of residence, which were situated in the former East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), following the partition in 1947.

Furthermore, the petitioners argued that upon the migration of their predecessors to India, they were recognized as refugees, and the State Government's Revenue Department permitted them to reside in a designated area of land on the bank of the Bharalu river. Subsequently, their families have resided in this allocated parcel of land since 1951.

It was emphasized that through an order dated April 19, 1956, the families of the petitioners were granted permission to occupy the aforementioned parcels of land on a temporary basis (T.B.) until they were allocated land in other locations, subject to the specified conditions outlined therein.

It was mentioned that previously, the families of the petitioners had been served with eviction notices/orders by the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Kamrup. However, during a proceeding before the Assam Board of Revenue, it was documented that in the appellants' case, there existed a valid permission to occupy the government land, thereby establishing their bona fide right to challenge the eviction notices issued under Rule 18(2) and Rule 18(3) of the Settlement Rules.

Hence, the notices issued to the appellants therein was quashed.

Case Title: Ranjit Karmakar & 42 Ors. v. The State of Assam & 5 Ors.

Case No.: WP(C)/966/2024