Judgement (Oral):

1. Heard Mr. G. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. J. Talukdar, learned Senior Counsel for the State respondent Nos. 6, 9, 10 & 11; Mr. R. K. D. Choudhury, learned DSGI for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7 & 8; and Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department, for respondent Nos. 4 & 5.

2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to complete the process of rehabilitation and resettlement as initiated vide the Provisional Allotment Certificate of Ceiling Surplus Land and Handing Over of Possession dated 23.02.2016 in any other appropriate area under Katigorah Revenue Circle, as the petitioners have been rendered homeless due to the construction of Indo-Bangladesh International Border Fencing. The petitioners have also sought for a direction to acquire their land which has been utilized for erection of Indo-Bangladesh Border Fence in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

3. Briefly put, the petitioners claim to be the owners of plots of land situated at Jalalpur and Mahadevpur Gaon Panchayat in the District of Cachar, Assam, which they inherited from their respective ancestors as well as by way of purchase from their erstwhile landowners. The petitioners were utilizing the said land either for residential or for cultivation and fishing purposes.

4. In terms of the decision of the Government of India to secure the international border, including the Indo-Bangladesh border, against infiltration etc., the authorities have constructed the road along and around the international border. Thereafter, in order to guard the Indo-Bangladesh Border, the Government of India had further decided to erect border fencing, which was accordingly constructed in the year 2006 along the Indo-Bangladesh border, including the stretches passing through Jalalpur and Mahadevpur Gaon Panchayat areas in the district of Cachar. As a consequence of the erection of the said fencing, the lands of the petitioners have fallen outside the border fencing.

5. It is the contention of the petitioners that ingress and egress to and from their lands have been restricted by the BSF and they are unable to avail themselves of welfare programmes and government schemes as their lands now fall outside the Indo-Bangladesh border fencing. It is contended that due to their lands being pushed outside the border fencing, the petitioners have been deprived from completely utilizing and enjoying their properties which is a clear deprivation of life and property without authority of law, inasmuch as no acquisition proceedings have been initiated.

6. Having realized that the land of the petitioners had fallen outside the Indo- Bangladesh international border fencing, the respondent authorities of the State of Assam issued a Provisional Allotment Certificate of Ceiling Surplus Land and Handing Over of Possession vide order dated 23.02.2016 for rehabilitation of 174 affected families, including the petitioners herein, who are residing outside the Indo-Bangladesh border fencing in different border line mouzas. The respondent authorities have proposed allotment of Ceiling Surplus Land under Mouza and Talkor Grant, Pargonah-Gumrah under Katigorah Revenue Circle in favour of the petitioners and formally recommended allotment of an area of 10 Kathas to each affected family by issuing separate orders. The physical possession of the allotted land was also handed over to the petitioners separately. The said allotment was made for homestead purposes and not to be transferred to any other persons.

7. When the petitioners were taken to the said designated areas for rehabilitation and resettlement, due to serious objection/ opposition from the local people residing in those areas where the petitioners were proposed to be settled, the process could not be materialized. Consequently, the petitioners have been living in uncertainty since then without any permanent settlement and have been compelled to reside with their relatives in different places.

8. Mr. G. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that although the grievance of the petitioners includes acquisition of the land in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, at this stage, since the respondent authorities have already taken a decision to rehabilitate and resettle the affected families, whereby initially 7 (seven) families are stated to have been rehabilitated and resettled and the process of rehabilitation and resettlement of the rest of the 167 families is underway, the petitioners would be satisfied if they are also rehabilitated and resettled as has been done to the 7 (seven) families.

9. The State respondents, particularly the District Commissioner, Cachar District, respondent No. 9 herein, have filed an affidavit clearly stating that the allotment made in favour of 174 families in the year 2016 has not been cancelled. However, the physical possession of the alloted land could not be handed over to the petitioners due to serious resistance from the local people and consequently, a proposal for rehabilitation of 7 (seven) families out of total 174 families have been submitted to the Director, Border Protection and Development, and the efforts are being made to identify suitable land for rehabilitation of the remaining 167 families. It also reflected that out of the present 104 petitioners, petitioner Nos. 42 & 43 have been included in the rehabilitation proposal of 7 (seven) families. The affidavit also reflected that the rehabilitation and resettlement of the petitioners is stated to be already under process. However, the prayer for acquisition of the land cannot be entertained as the department has not made any such requisition for acquisition of land outside the Indo-Bangladesh international border fencing.

10. Mr. B. J. Talukdar, learned Senior Counsel for the State respondents, by placing the communication dated 09.12.2025 from the District Commissioner, Cachar, submits that although the affidavit filed by the District Commissioner states that a proposal for rehabilitation of 7 (seven) families has already been sent to the competent authority and the remaining 167 families were under process for rehabilitation and resettlement, at present, there is neither any ongoing rehabilitation work nor any proposals in respect of the remaining 167 families, who have already been shifted to different locations within the Indian border in terms of the report of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Katigorah Revenue Circle. However, he fairly submits that if the petitioners have not been rehabilitated and resettled, they may approach the District Commissioner with valid documents so that the cases of the 167 families could be considered, as the State authorities have already decided to provide rehabilitation and resettlement to all the affected families.

11. Mr. G. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioners, rejoining his submission, submits that the petitioners are still approaching the authorities by running from pillar to post since 2016 and in the absence of rehabilitation and resettlement, they have been compelled to reside with their relatives with the hope that the respondent authorities would rehabilitate and resettle them in terms of the Provisional Allotment Certificate issued in the year 2016.

12. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

13. Admittedly, the petitioners have been displaced from their land due to the construction of Indo-Bangladesh international border fencing. The respondent authorities, having been considered that the total of 174 families have been affected by such displacement, have provisionally allotted an area measuring 10 Kathas each to all 174 families, including the petitioners herein, for the purpose of rehabilitation. The provisional allotments were proposed under the Katigorah Revenue Circle, comprising Ceiling Surplus Land under Mouza and Talkor Grant, Pargonah-Gumrah. However, due to resistance/objections from the local residents, the process of rehabilitation and resettlement of the 174 families, including the petitioners, could not be completed in the proposed areas.

14. It transpires that a proposal for rehabilitation of 7 (seven) families out of the total 174 families have already been placed before the competent authority way back in the year 2023 and the remaining 167 families are being under the process for the same rehabilitation. However, from the instructions received, it is seen that no proposal is said to have been initiated so far as remaining 167 families are concerned, which includes some of the petitioners.

15. Records reveals that the Director, Border Protection and Development, Government of Assam, has written a letter addressed to the District Commissioner of 3 (three) districts, including Cachar, seeking detailed status report regarding shifting of villages located ahead of the Indo-Bangladesh border fencing to the mainland. The concerned District Commissioner appears to have submitted the requisite reports. However, no consequential action appears to have been taken thereafter, which has resulted in serious hardship to the affected families who were displaced due to the erection of the Indo- Bangladesh border fencing.

16. Having considered that the respondent authorities have failed to take appropriate action despite the displacement of the petitioners for more than a decade due to the erection of the Indo-Bangladesh border fencing and considering that the petitioners cannot be made to continue to suffer, resulting in violation of their livelihood and property, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondent authorities to take necessary steps for rehabilitation and resettlement of all 174 families who have been displaced due to erection of Indo-Bangladesh border fencing including, the petitioners.

17. Accordingly, the respondent authorities in the State of Assam, particularly District Commissioner, Cachar, and Director of Border Protection and Development, are directed to take up the matter and undertake necessary steps for rehabilitation and resettlement of all 174 families, including the petitioners, who have been displaced due to erection of Indo-Bangladesh border fencing, in an appropriate locations within the State. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

18. Writ petition stands disposed of in terms above.