The Gauhati High Court, while hearing a petition challenging notices issued by the Circle Office, Matia, has expressed serious doubts about the legality of the demolition of private dwelling houses in Goalpara. The petition, filed by Jahidul Islam and twenty others, contested notices demanding the demolition of houses constructed on agricultural land within 24 hours, under threat of legal action under Rule 6 of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, read with Sections 30(2)(v) and 34(k) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.
The court had previously directed the State to clarify what constituted an 'imminent danger' justifying such drastic measures. In response, the State submitted an enquiry report dated 20 June 2026, an order of the District Commissioner dated 23 June 2026, and para-wise comments dated 9 September 2026. After reviewing these materials, Justice Devashis Baruah observed in the order dated 11 September 2026 that the instructions and documents submitted by the State's counsel 'prima facie do not show that there was a case of imminent danger for taking such drastic actions of demolishing houses on private lands'.
The Bench further stated that, prima facie, the actions appeared to constitute a misuse of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. The court emphasized that the invocation of disaster management provisions to demolish private residences, without demonstrable and immediate threat to life or property, lacks legal justification.
In its proceedings, the court took on record the enquiry report, the District Commissioner’s order, and the para-wise comments submitted by the State. It also considered an additional affidavit filed by the petitioners, which included photographs of the demolished houses and details of the losses suffered. The court directed the State to respond to this additional affidavit and indicated that it would consider the question of compensation if it ultimately finds that the authorities acted without legal authority.
To ensure a comprehensive examination, the court granted the District Commissioner and the Circle Officer an opportunity to file independent affidavits in the matter. This direction was aimed at allowing the authorities to present their version of events and justification for the notices and subsequent demolitions.
The court reiterated the continuation of its interim order, which had previously restrained the authorities from taking any further action on the lands of the petitioners. It clarified that no further demolition or coercive action would be permitted while the matter remains under adjudication. The case is scheduled for hearing on 13 October 2026.
The Gauhati High Court’s observations underscore the necessity for strict adherence to procedural and substantive requirements when invoking emergency statutes like the Disaster Management Act, 2005. The Act, designed to respond to actual or impending disasters, cannot be employed as a tool for routine land enforcement or revenue-related actions absent a demonstrable and immediate threat.
By highlighting the absence of prima facie evidence of imminent danger and suggesting a potential misuse of statutory powers, the court has signaled its intent to scrutinize the executive’s reliance on disaster management provisions in non-emergency contexts. The matter now awaits the State’s response and the filing of independent affidavits by the concerned authorities before the next hearing.