Er. Bibhash Deva Nath
Illegal encroachment has emerged as one of the most sensitive land-governance challenges in Assam. From government land and forest areas to grazing reserves, wetlands and public infrastructure corridors, unauthorised occupation can undermine environmental protection, obstruct development and deprive communities of resources intended for collective benefit. Addressing this challenge requires more than periodic eviction drives. It calls for a sustained administrative strategy that combines lawful enforcement, accurate land records, ecological restoration and social responsibility.
Under the dynamic leadership of Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, the Assam government has placed considerable emphasis on reclaiming government land and removing alleged encroachments. His administration has brought the issue to the centre of public debate, presenting the protection of public property as an essential responsibility of the state. The long-term success of this effort will depend on how much land is reclaimed and how fair, transparent, and durable the process is.
Beyond eviction, the first requirement for an effective anti-encroachment policy is certainty over land ownership. Disputes often arise from outdated cadastral maps, incomplete records, unclear boundaries and conflicting claims involving government departments, traditional communities and private individuals. When such ambiguities remain unresolved, enforcement can generate avoidable litigation and public distrust. The state should therefore establish a comprehensive digital land inventory covering government khas land, grazing reserves, wetlands, forest areas and other protected public properties. Satellite imagery, drone surveys and geographic information systems can help identify unauthorised structures and track changes in land use. These technologies, however, should support—not replace—physical verification and legally valid records. Every proposed eviction should be preceded by a documented assessment of the land’s ownership, legal status and boundaries. Where competing claims exist, authorities must provide an opportunity for affected parties to present relevant documents and seek review through the appropriate legal process. A clear distinction must be maintained between a verified encroachment and an unresolved land dispute.
Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma has made the recovery of government land a prominent feature of his administration’s approach to governance. Strong political direction can help overcome bureaucratic inertia, coordinate departments and ensure that public land is not treated as an expendable resource. However, effective leadership must extend beyond announcing or conducting eviction operations. The chief minister’s office should establish measurable objectives, require district-wise progress reports and ensure that reclaimed land remains protected after the removal of unauthorised occupation. Departments responsible for revenue, forests, environment, public works and local administration need clearly defined responsibilities, with coordination mechanisms to resolve overlapping claims.
Equally important is independent scrutiny. Publicly accessible information on the location and legal status of reclaimed land, the number of affected households, pending court cases and subsequent land use would strengthen confidence in the programme. A transparent reporting system would allow citizens to distinguish lawful recovery from politically contested or inadequately documented action. The administration should also make its policy consistent across districts and categories of occupants. Enforcement loses credibility if influential individuals receive preferential treatment or if similar cases are handled differently without a defensible legal reason.
Encroachment in ecologically sensitive areas deserves particular attention. Assam’s forests support biodiversity and wildlife habitats, while wetlands perform vital functions in flood moderation, fisheries and water storage. Village grazing reserves and professional grazing grounds also support rural livelihoods. A restoration plan should accompany the removal of unauthorised occupations from these areas. In forests, this may involve native-species regeneration, habitat protection and measures to prevent renewed clearing. In wetlands, authorities should restore natural drainage and restrict activities that damage water bodies. Grazing reserves should be mapped, demarcated and protected from further conversion. The Forest Department, revenue authorities, local bodies and scientific institutions should jointly monitor restored sites. Periodic satellite assessments and community reporting can reveal fresh encroachment before it becomes extensive. Reclaimed land must not subsequently be diverted for unauthorised commercial use or other purposes that are inconsistent with its legally designated status.
A firm anti-encroachment policy must recognise that not every case has the same social circumstances. Some occupations may involve deliberate commercial exploitation of public land; others may involve families who have lived in a disputed area for years, sometimes without secure documentation. These situations require legally sound but appropriately differentiated responses. Where eviction is legally justified, affected occupants should receive notice in accordance with applicable law, a meaningful opportunity to contest the action and access to an impartial grievance mechanism. Any applicable court orders and statutory safeguards must be respected. Urgent action to protect public safety or ecologically critical land should remain within the bounds of law.
For households facing displacement, the government should assess eligibility for rehabilitation, relocation or housing assistance under applicable schemes. Such assistance must not create an automatic entitlement to occupy protected land, but neither should vulnerability be ignored. Special attention is warranted for children, elderly individuals, individuals with disabilities and families whose livelihoods depend directly on the affected area. Lastly, the objective should be to enforce the law without unnecessary hardship and to prevent legitimate public-interest action from becoming a source of avoidable human suffering.
(The author can be reached at bibhashdevanath@gmail.com)