Judgment & Order (Oral):

1. Heard Mr. A. R. Bhuyan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and Mr. M. R. Adhikari, the learned CGC appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1. I have also heard Mr. D. Gogoi, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6; Ms. P. R. Mahanta, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.4; Mr. S. S. Roy, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 7 to 10.

2. One hundred thirty-three (133) writ Petitioners joined together to file the instant writ petition challenging the notice dated 08.12.2025 issued by the Respondent Authorities and further seeking that the Respondent Authorities be restrained from disturbing the peaceful possession of the Petitioners and carrying out any demolition or eviction in respect to their houses and residential plots at Dumaihagi Dapara Villages, Chankhola and Kandapara Villages and Longjup Padumoni (Hatipara Forest Village) Villages under Lutumai Reserved Forest in Nagaon District.

3. The Petitioners have also sought for directions that the Respondents should provide benefits to the Petitioners under the National Food Security Act, 2013; Right to Education Act, 2009 and the Assam Panchayat Act, 1995 and all other necessary benefits.

4. This Court enquired with Mr. A. R. Bhuyan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners in respect to the prayer pertaining to seeking directions in respect to National Food Security Act, 2013; Right to Education Act, 2009 and the Assam Panchayat Act, 1995 and he submitted that the Petitioners would be well advised not to insist the said prayer in the present proceedings and if there is any violation to the provisions of the said Acts, the Petitioners be granted the liberty to agitate the same by way of separate writ petition. The prayer being reasonable, liberty is granted to the Petitioners to agitate their grievances in respect to the infraction of the provisions of the aforesaid by way of separate writ petition(s).

5. In the backdrop of the above, this Court therefore takes up the instant writ petition only on the question pertaining to the challenge to the notice dated 08.12.2025 issued by the Respondent Authorities as well as the eviction which is sought to be carried out by the Respondent Authorities on the basis of the impugned notice dated 08.12.2025.

6. The case of the Petitioners herein are that they have been residing in the villages of Dumaihagi Dapara Villages, Chankhola and Kandapara Villages and Longjup Padumoni (Hatipara Forest Village) Villages under Lutumai Reserved Forest in Nagaon District for many years. It is claimed by the Petitioners that the original pattadars through lawful and valid means have granted the Petitioners permission to reside upon the said lands and cultivate the lands.

7. On 08.12.2025, notices were issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Nagaon Forest Division to the various Petitioners. The Petitioners apprehended that on the basis of the said notice dated 08.12.2025, the Petitioners would be evicted and as such, the Petitioners have approached this Court.

8. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties including the counsel who appears on behalf of the Forest Department.

9. Mr. D. Gogoi, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Forest Department submitted that the said notices were issued in pursuance to the directions passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the Judgment dated 18.08.2025 passed in Writ Appeal No.251/2025 and Writ Appeal No.252/2025. He further submitted that against the said judgment passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court dated 18.08.2025, Special Leave to Appeals were filed before the Supreme Court and vide a judgment dated 10.02.2026, the Supreme Court disposed of those appeals by issuing certain directions. The learned Standing counsel further submitted that in view of the said observations and directions made by the Supreme Court, the Forest Department now would take steps in accordance with the said directions passed.

10. This Court enquired with Mr. A. R. Bhuyan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners as to whether the lands in question wherein the Petitioners are residing fall within the reserved forest. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the lands under their occupation no doubt are reserved forest land but they were issued settlement certificates for temporary settlement under the Tonguya/Tangiya system in the year 1974.

11. This Court has duly perused the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Khalek and Others Vs. The State of Assam and Others dated 10.02.2026. A perusal of the said judgment reveals that while those appeals were pending before the Supreme Court, an additional affidavit was filed on 18.01.2026 by the State of Assam, the contents of which were reproduced in the said judgment. The Supreme Court at paragraph No.12 of the said judgment delineated the policy decision of the State of Assam to remove unauthorized occupation from the reserve forest. In addition to that, the Supreme Court also observed at Paragraph No.13 that on behalf of the State of Assam, the learned Solicitor General has assured that the mechanism evolved by the State shall be complied with objectively and with fairness while taking action for removal of unauthorized occupation in the reserved forest.

12. Taking into account the said, this Court finds it relevant to reproduce paragraph Nos. 12 and 13 of the said judgment in the case of Abdul Khalek and Others (supra).

                   “12. Thus, from perusal of aforesaid additional affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the following policy decision to remove unauthorised occupation from the reserved forest has been taken:

                   (i) The respondents shall constitute a committee comprising forest officials and the revenue officials.

                   (ii) The said committee shall issue notice to the alleged unauthorised occupants and shall give them an opportunity to adduce evidence to show that they have the right to occupy the land which is in their possession.

                   (iii) The action for removal of encroachment shall be taken, only if it is found that there is an encroachment in the reserved forest area.

                   (iv) In case the noticee is found to be within the revenue limits, outside the notified forest area, the details of the noticee shall be sent to the revenue department. In such cases, revenue department shall decide the future course of action.

                   (v) The action is being taken by the State to remove encroachment from the reserved forest areas and has nothing to do in respect of the matters which may be referred to the revenue department.

                   (vi) If an unauthorised occupation is found in a reserved forest area, after scrutiny of the documents, a speaking order shall be passed and shall be served on the concerned person giving him 15 days notice to vacate the unauthorized occupation and only after expiry of the period of notice, the action shall be taken to remove the unauthorised occupants.

                   (vii) Occupation of a Gaon Panchayat in a forest is permissible if there is a sufficient proof as per the Jamabandi Register maintained by the Forest Department or as provided under the Forest Rights Act.

                   13. In our opinion, the course of action to be adopted by the State Government while removing the encroachment from the reserved forest contains sufficient procedural safeguards. The process sought to be adopted by the State Government for removal of encroachment conforms to the principles of fairness, reasonableness and due process. Learned Solicitor General has assured us that the mechanism evolved by the State shall be complied with objectively and with fairness while taking action for removal of unauthorised occupation in the reserved forests. The parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of land in occupation of the appellants/writ petitioners till speaking order is passed and till expiry of notice period of 15 days. All contentions are kept open to be agitated before the committee. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the claim of the parties, as the same has to be examined by the committee.”

13. In view of the observations made by the Supreme Court at Paragraph Nos. 12 and 13, it is the opinion of this Court that the instant writ petition can be disposed of in the similar manner thereby directing the Respondent Authorities to carry out the required procedure and steps in terms with the directions passed by the Supreme Court at Paragraph Nos. 12 and 13 in the case of Abdul Khalek and Others (supra) as quoted herein above.

14. Accordingly, the instant writ petition therefore stands disposed of with directions upon the Respondent Authorities more particularly the Forest Department, Revenue Department, District Administration as well as the Police Authorities who are parties to the instant proceedings to comply as per the directions passed by the Supreme Court at Paragraph Nos. 12 and 13 in the case of Abdul Khalek and Others (supra).

15. Mr. A. R. Bhuyan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submitted that some form of interim directions may be given.

16. At Paragraph No.13 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Khalek and Others (supra), the Supreme Court has categorically mentioned that the parties were directed to maintain status quo in respect of land in occupation till Speaking Orders are passed. The Petitioners therefore are also entitled to similar directions to the extent that the parties herein shall maintain status quo in respect to the land in occupation of the Petitioners till the directions in terms with Paragraph No.12 of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Khalek and Others (supra) are not complied with.

17. This Court has not decided on the merits of the inter-se dispute while passing the instant judgment which shall be decided by the Committee to be constituted as per the judgment of the Supreme Court.

18. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.