SATURDAY, AUGUST 23, 2025

logo

Supreme Court halts Uriamghat eviction, orders status quo on Assam villages

Supreme Court halts Uriamghat eviction in Assam, orders status quo after residents challenge Gauhati High Court ruling.

Published on Aug 23, 2025

By Mirror Desk

Share

logos_telegram
logos_whatsapp-icon
ant-design_message-filled
logos_facebook

DIMAPUR — The Supreme Court on August 22 ordered status quo on eviction and demolition drives initiated in Uriamghat and adjoining villages of Golaghat district, Assam.


According to a Live Law report on Saturday, a bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar passed the interim order while issuing notice on a petition challenging the Gauhati High Court’s decision that had upheld the eviction exercise.


The petitioners, describing themselves as “long-settled residents” of the affected villages, argued that many families have lived there for more than seven decades.


They contended that the eviction notices—issued in July 2025 under the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891—gave them only seven days to vacate their homes, without any provision for rehabilitation or proper settlement inquiry as required under law.


Also read: Nagaland, Assam agree on joint measures in Disputed Area Belt


Earlier, the Gauhati High Court had dismissed their writ appeals, holding that the residents were trespassers as the villages fall within the Doyang and South Nambar Reserved Forests.


Challenging this, the petitioners told the apex court that they are recognised by the state through electricity connections, ration cards, and inclusion in electoral rolls.


Read more: Wokha DC meets villagers, reviews situation after DAB eviction drive


They also argued that the eviction drive violates the Forest Rights Act, 2006, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and the Assam Rules of 2015.


The petition further claimed that the authorities’ action undermines fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 21, 25, and 300-A of the Constitution. They relied on a previous Supreme Court ruling that mandated prior notice, opportunity of hearing, and proper rehabilitation before demolition of structures.