Gauhati HC Halts Further Action in Goalpara After Questioning "Illegal" Demolition of 73 Homes on 24-Hour Notice

The Gauhati High Court has restrained Assam authorities from taking further action against residential properties in the Matia revenue circle of Goalpara, days after a demolition drive razed 73 houses belonging to Muslim families.

Justice Devashis Baruah passed the order on September 7 while hearing a petition filed by Jahidul Islam and 20 other residents against the Assam government, Goalpara district administration and the Matia circle officer.

The court questioned the legality of the demolition and observed that the action appeared, prima facie, to be unauthorised and contrary to the principles of natural justice. It said the safeguards flowing from Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution could not be ignored and questioned how residents could be denied an opportunity to respond to demolition notices.

According to the petitioners, the Matia circle officer issued notices on September 5 under Rule 6 of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, besides invoking provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

The notices allegedly gave residents only 24 hours to remove houses built on their patta land, failing which legal action would follow. The petitioners told the court that bulldozers reached the area early on September 7 and demolished the structures without allowing any further process.

The court also referred to Section 3(iv) of the Assam Agricultural Land (Regulation of Reclassification and Transfer for Non-Agricultural Purpose) Act, 2015. The provision allows a landowner to construct a dwelling on their agricultural land without prior permission from the deputy commissioner, subject to conditions including the plot being no larger than one bigha and the building not exceeding two storeys.

The court clarified that this observation was made while examining the validity of the notices and did not amount to a final determination on whether each individual house complied with all legal requirements.

Government counsel S S Roy was directed to obtain instructions from the district administration and explain at the next hearing on September 11 what emergency, if any, justified the demolition.

The court also allowed the petitioners to submit an additional affidavit detailing the demolition and the losses they claim to have suffered.