Assam: Over 4,000 evicted after homes of 640 Bengali Muslim families demolished in Dhubri

More than 4,000 residents were displaced after authorities demolished the homes of over 640 Bengali Muslim families in Alamganj Part-IX village, Dhubri district. The action covered 650 bighas of government-owned land. It matters because a large community lost homes and had to find shelter elsewhere immediately.

Officials said eviction notices had been served for residents occupying 800 bighas. The demolition went ahead on 650 bighas, while 150 bighas remained untouched because court cases were pending. Residents had reportedly dismantled some homes and moved belongings before bulldozers arrived. Ali Chand Fakir said three houses, trees, and toilets were flattened.

The displaced residents did not receive alternative land according to Fakir. Many moved into relatives’ homes, roadside makeshift huts, or low-lying char areas under tarpaulins. The district commissioner said the cleared land would be handed to the industrial department, which has sought land for an industrial park, though the government would make the final decision.

The eviction displaced more than 4,000 people from over 640 Bengali Muslim families. These figures show that the action affected a large community rather than a small number of individual structures. The demolitions took place in Alamganj Part-IX village in Dhubri district.

Authorities cleared 650 bighas of government-owned land. The district commissioner said notices had covered 800 bighas in total, but the drive did not proceed across the remaining 150 bighas. Pending court cases stopped demolition on that portion. Thus, the cleared area was smaller than the land covered by the notices.

The scale also created an immediate housing crisis. Ali Chand Fakir said most displaced residents lacked alternative land. They were staying with relatives, in roadside huts covered by tarpaulins, or in low-lying char areas. The land was expected to go to the industrial department, but the government had not yet made the final decision.

An eviction drive is an official operation in which authorities remove residents and demolish structures from land they identify as unlawfully occupied or needed for another purpose. It matters because families can lose homes quickly, especially when they lack alternative land. In this case, the land was classified as government-owned.

The Dhubri administration said residents had occupied government land and served eviction notices covering 800 bighas. Officials then demolished homes on 650 bighas. The district commissioner alleged that many residents had land elsewhere, but residents disputed that claim. Their accounts included long-term settlement and payments under the touzi system.

Government ownership gave authorities the stated basis for the action, but the process was not complete everywhere. Demolition did not occur on 150 bighas because court cases were pending. This shows that legal challenges can affect an eviction drive, while the article does not determine the final legal status of residents’ claims.

Authorities wanted to clear the land because the industrial department had been seeking land for an industrial park for two years. Dhubri District Commissioner Dibakar Nath said the cleared land would be handed to that department. He also said the government would take the further decision, so the park was a proposed use rather than a completed project.

The administration served eviction notices for 800 bighas. The drive proceeded on 650 bighas in Alamganj Part-IX village, where homes of more than 640 families were demolished. The remaining 150 bighas were not demolished because court cases were pending. Those cases created a legal barrier to continuing the operation there.

The situation reflects a conflict between planned government use and residents’ claims of long settlement. Officials alleged that residents had occupied government land and that most owned land elsewhere. Residents disputed this. Ali Chand Fakir said he had lived there since 1962, while several residents reported paying land revenue between 1972 and 2016.

After the demolitions, many displaced families moved into relatives’ houses or improvised shelters. Others built makeshift huts beside roads, using tarpaulins, or went to low-lying char areas. These choices show that displacement was immediate and that families had few stable housing options.

Ali Chand Fakir said most displaced residents did not have alternative land. His account described people moving belongings before the bulldozers arrived, then losing houses, trees, and toilets when the demolition took place. The district administration disputed the residents’ position by alleging that most had land elsewhere, but residents rejected that claim.

The immediate problems were homelessness, crowded family accommodation, and exposure in roadside or low-lying locations. The article does not report a formal rehabilitation plan. It says the cleared land would be handed to the industrial department, while the government would decide its further use. The broader displacement also came during intensified eviction drives in Assam.

Touzi receipts are records of payments made by people occupying government land. In Alamganj Part-IX, residents said several people had paid land revenue under this system between 1972 and 2016. The records matter because they support residents’ account of a long relationship with the land.

Ali Chand Fakir, who said he had lived in the village since 1962, cited these payments while disputing officials’ claims about recent settlement. The district commissioner said residents had arrived in different phases, with some coming five years earlier and others a decade earlier. Residents’ accounts presented a much longer history for at least some families.

The receipts show that payments were made during years of occupation, but the article does not say they granted ownership or secure title. This distinction is important because residents could have payment records while the administration still classified the land as government-owned. The competing claims helped shape the dispute before demolition.

The article connects displacement in Assam with the Brahmaputra’s floods and erosion. Ali Chand Fakir said he moved from Goalpara district to Alamganj in 1962 because the river had damaged his earlier home and surroundings. Such movement can push families toward land where tenure is less secure, especially when settlement occurs on government land.

Chars are low-lying areas. The article reports that many newly displaced residents were living in char areas after the demolition. Their situation shows a repeating pattern: river-related damage drives movement, and later evictions can force families into other exposed places. The article does not provide engineering or legal details about char formation.

This pattern makes housing insecure in two ways. Flooding and erosion can destroy or change settled land, while government classification can leave residents vulnerable to eviction. In Alamganj, more than 4,000 people lacked alternative land after demolition. Their next moves therefore remained tied to relatives, roadside shelters, or low-lying areas.