Supreme Court pauses eviction drive at Assam's Uriamghat

Court has been told that the residents were denied fair hearing as eviction notices granted only seven days’ time, contrary to statutory provisions.;

Update: 2025-08-23 10:58 GMT

The Supreme Court on Friday (August 22) ordered status quo on the eviction drive to be carried out in Golaghat District, Assam, namely Negheribill, Gelajan, Bidyapur, Rajapukhuri, Uriamghat and adjoining areas.

A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Atul Chandurkar has issued notice on a SLP filed by the residents of these areas challenging a Gauhati High Court order whereby the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeals filed by them and affirmed the judgment of the Single Judge upholding the eviction action initiated by the authorities.

"Issue notice. Dasti, in addition, is permitted. Pending disposal of the Special Leave Petitions, the parties shall maintain status quo.", the supreme court's order states.

The impugned judgment is said to raise substantial questions of constitutional and legal importance concerning the rights of long-settled residents, the applicability of statutory safeguards under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and the binding nature of the apex court’s directions in In Re: Demolitions.

In November last year, Supreme Court had ordered that no demolitions should be carried out without a prior show cause notice, every local authority has been directed to assign a digital portal within 3 months which shall contain the details of these notices issued.

"In July 2025, the Respondent authorities issued eviction notices under the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 (as amended), alleging that the Petitioners’ villages fall within the Doyang and South Nambar Reserved Forests. The notices granted only seven days’ time to vacate, contrary to statutory requirements and binding judicial precedents mandating fair notice, hearing, and rehabilitation", the petition before court submits.

The high court is said to have dismissed the petitions while branding the petitioner residents as trespassers without examining the constitutional protections or statutory entitlements available to them.

It is the petitioner's case that their forefathers settled at the said area more than seven decades ago, and over the years, the Petitioners and their families constructed permanent and semi-permanent houses, cultivated agricultural lands, and developed social, economic, and religious institutions. "They were granted electricity connections, ration cards, Aadhaar numbers, and have been continuously enrolled in the electoral rolls of their constituency. Many were also sanctioned housing assistance under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY-G). These facts collectively demonstrate that the Petitioners are long-settled inhabitants whose residence has been consistently recognised by the State itself", the plea adds.

Court has been told that the residents were denied fair hearing as eviction notices granted only seven days’ time, contrary to statutory provisions, and the subsequent demolition drive was announced without adequate opportunity to present claims or seek rehabilitation. 

The impugned judgment is said to have enabled bulldozer demolitions rendering entire communities homeless, destroying schools, mosques, hand pumps, and agricultural fields. Such mass dispossession without due process is unprecedented in scale and calls for urgent intervention by the Supreme Court under Article 136, the court has been told.

Impugned decision of the High Court is said to undermine the Petitioners’ fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, 21, 25 and 300-A of the Constitution; and sanction arbitrary and disproportionate State action destructive of the Petitioners’ right to life, shelter, and dignity.

As per the residents, the following statutory violations under forest and land acquisition laws have been allowed by impugned judgment which has endorsed eviction under the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 without examining compliance with:

1. Section 24 of the Regulation, which requires a Forest Settlement Officer to adjudicate claims of lawful occupation before dispossession;

2. The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, which mandates verification of claims, Gram Sabha approval, and rehabilitation prior to eviction;

3. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which imposes a statutory duty to rehabilitate before displacement.

In a similar case, the Supreme Court in July had issued notice on a contempt petition against the eviction and demolition conducted in Hasila Beel revenue village in Goalpara district of Assam. Court was therein told that the eviction and demolition exercise predominantly targeted a minority community, while leaving out similarly placed persons from the majority community untouched, thereby constituting discriminatory implementation and carrying out of the eviction drive by the authorities concerned.

The eviction drive allegedly also demolished around five government primary schools, violating the Right to Education under Article 21A of the Constitution and statutory protection under the Right to Education Act, 2009.

Senior Advocates Chander Uday Singh and Rauf Rahim appeared for the petitioners along with AOR Adeel Ahmed, and Advocates Abdur Razzaque Bhuyan, Katyayani Suhurd, Ali Rahim, Mohsin Rahim, Nekibur Zaman Choudhury, Nasim Akram Mazarbhuiya, and Shehnaz Laskar.

Case Title: ABDUL KHALEK & ORS. vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM & ORS.

Order Date: August 22, 2025

Bench: Justices Narasimha and Chandurkar

Tags:    

Similar News