GUWAHATI, Sept 11: 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 leading to the demolition and specifically questioned what imminent danger had necessitated the action.
Senior Advocate S Borthakur, appearing for the petitioners, 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.
The counsel said the houses were demolished in the early hours of September 7, barely two days after the notices were issued, without giving the owners an opportunity to be 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) exempts a person from obtaining permission from the Deputy Commissioner where agricultural land not exceeding one bigha is used to construct 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 for invoking such drastic powers.
The government advocate representing the District Commissioner and 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 losses suffered.
Meanwhile, the court restrained the District Commissioner and 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 was listed for further hearing on September 11.
