High Court Grants Liberty for Fresh Land-Allotment Applications and Directs Executive to Consider Rehabilitation Where Land Is Unavailable

A single‑judge bench of Justice Devashis Baruah heard a writ petition by the Kokrajhar Chirang Mauriya Relief Committee, representing 4,285 families whose previously allotted lands were eroded by rivers including the Sarabhanga, Aie, Champa (Bhur) and Kumguri. The petition sought fresh allotment of land and/or a lump‑sum rehabilitation grant of Rs.50,000 per family, similar to a package earlier provided by the State for certain displaced families.

The High Court granted the petitioners liberty to file individual applications for fresh allotment under the Land Policy, 2019 and the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, and directed the concerned authorities to consider each application and verify earlier allotment credentials. The Court observed that if allotted lands no longer existed due to erosion, the applicants could be treated as similarly placed to families classified under Phase‑IV of the State’s earlier action plan and considered for an appropriate rehabilitation package by the executive. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "This Court however cannot also be unmindful of the fact that the victims in the Phase‑IV were rehabilitated in view of the fact that the lands could not be allotted to them in spite of best efforts on the part of the State Government.... In the eventualities after making individual applications by the members of the Petitioner association, the Government is of the opinion that such members of the Petitioner association cannot be allotted or settled any land, then the Revenue and Disaster Management Department of the Government of Assam has to take a call as to how the said members of the Petitioner association could be rehabilitated. This aspect however would fall absolutely within the executive domain and as such this Court at this stage would not like to pass any directions.... the members of the Petitioner Association ... would be similarly situated to those persons in Phase‑IV, if no lands can be allotted to them and therefore are required to be similarly situated."

Background The petition arose after the petitioners conceded that they had been earlier allotted lands which were subsequently eroded as the rivers changed course. The petitioners sought either fresh allotment of land or payment of Rs.50,000 per family, pointing to an earlier State decision that had fixed that amount as a lump‑sum rehabilitation grant for certain cohorts who could not be settled with land. The State’s affidavit traced a four‑phase Action Plan adopted for rehabilitation of families affected by violence in 1996 and 1998, explaining that Phase‑I to III families had been rehabilitated through return or minimal security arrangements while Phase‑IV comprised families for whom land had to be arranged and who continued in relief camps; for Phase‑IV the Government had fixed Rs.50,000 as a one‑time rehabilitation grant and rehabilitated specified numbers of families.

The High Court noted that the petitioners effectively fell within the ambit of earlier allotments (Phases I–III) but that their allotted lands had been eroded and therefore they could be similarly situated to Phase‑IV families. The Court emphasised procedural compliance: each affected family must apply individually to the Secretary, Land Revenue & Disaster Management Department, Bodoland Territorial Council, enclosing earlier settlement details. The authorities were directed to verify prior allotment and the existence or erosion of allotted land, and to decide entitlement under the Land Policy, 2019. The Court declined to prescribe the exact rehabilitation package, observing that determination on rehabilitation where land could not be allotted fell within the executive domain, but it required the executive to treat deserving applicants on parity with Phase‑IV families where appropriate.

Final directions required authorities to decide entitlement upon application within eight months, and to complete the entire verification and rehabilitation exercise within one year from date of application; if allotment proved impossible, the Secretary, Land Revenue & Disaster Management Department, BTC was to inform the State Revenue and Disaster Management Department for further verification and concurrence on rehabilitation measures. The writ petition stood disposed accordingly, with the Registry ordered to serve copies of the order to the standing counsels for compliance.

Case No.: WP(C)/5086/2015 Case Title: Kokrajhar Chirang Mauriya Relief Committee and Anr. v. The Union of India and 9 Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. K. R. Patgiri, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. R. Borpujari, Standing Counsel; Mrs. R. B. Bora, Standing Counsel, BTC