The Assam government was given a contempt notice by the Supreme Court on Monday, September 30, for demolishing the homes of forty-eight families in the Kamrup district without giving them prior notice, citing their encroachment on tribal territory. The court also ordered the status quo on any more demolition actions.
The Mouza-Sonapur villagers, who reside in the Kamrup Metro district in Assam, petitioned the court led by Justice Bhushan R Gavai, and the bench issued the ruling. Residents claimed that after the top court announced on September 17 that it was considering pan-India guidelines against “bulldozer justice,” the state had to obtain permission from the court before demolishing their homes. In doing so, the court made it clear that properties that are unauthorized or that infringe on public space or roadways will not be protected.
The bench, which included Justice KV Viswanathan, was informed that some houses had been demolished while proceedings against others were still pending. As a result, Assam and its representatives received notice of the contempt plea.
The case was postponed by the court for three weeks, despite the fact that Justice Gavai’s bench is scheduled to hear the primary case on Tuesday on rules opposing “bulldozer justice.”
“There has been an egregious breach of this court’s order,” senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi declared during her appearance on behalf of the residents. He emphasized that the September 17 court judgment was unambiguous in stating that no demolition could occur without the court’s approval. In addition, the petitioners in this case had spent several decades battling Assam’s Gauhati High Court to protect their land rights as holders of powers of attorney.
Assam’s state attorney general stated that no action would be taken until the decisions about the representations in this respect were made during the high court hearing on September 20. Regarding the same occupiers, the top court instructed the authorities in February 2020 that the deputy commissioner should give the tenants a sufficient amount of time to seek alternative remedies in the event that an adverse ruling is given. The state was even accused of having breached this ruling.
In their contempt plea, the petitioners—who reside in Kachutoli Pathar and the surrounding areas—stated that they had been residing on the land through the power of attorney agreements that were given to them by their forebears who settled in the 1950s, despite not having original land ownership documents. They were granted identity documents based on the evidence of their land deeds.
They reject the 1987 notification referenced by the state government proclaiming their land to be part of tribal land, claiming they are not encroachers. They asserted that the land was not acquired from native people and that the tribal belt’s boundaries were improperly drawn because some native people had made their homes outside of these lines.