AM Bujor Barua, J
1. Heard Mr. KN Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant in WA No.335/2018, Mr. N Dutta, learned senior counsel for the
appellant in WA No.340/2018, Mrs. SP Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in WA No.93/2019 and Mr. A Ali, learned counsel for
the appellant in WA No.238/2019. Also heard Mr. TC Chutia, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the State respondent authorities,
Mr. BJ Talukdar, learned standing counsel for the Revenue Department and Mr. S Bora, learned standing counsel for the GMC.
2. All the four appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 11.10.2018 of the learned Single Judge, amongst others in the
respective writ petitions preferred by the appellants.
3. Without going into the details of the factual background of the different appeals, we take note of a common fact that all the appellants were put into
possession of certain government lands of the Agricultural Department, GMC etc., through certain instruments to hand over the possession.
4. Except for raising a feeble objection by Mr. BJ Talukdar, learned standing counsel for the Revenue Department as regards the legitimacy of the
respective instruments, nothing on record has been produced that the instruments on which the appellants were put into possession were either
fraudulent or otherwise unsustainable in law. In the circumstances, for the present adjudication, we presume that the various instruments through
which the respective appellants were put into possession of their plots of land were otherwise acceptable under the law.
5. All the appellants on an apprehension that they may be evicted from their respective plots of land without following due procedure of law, had
approached this Court by way of their respective writ petitions.
6. In course of the proceeding, the respondent authorities had taken the stand that the appellants are to be evicted from their respective lands in
exercise of power under Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules under Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 (for short, Regulations of 1886).
7. The learned Single Judge by the judgment and order dated 11.10.2018 arrived at its conclusion that the appellants are neither land owners nor
tenants and they are carrying on their respective businesses on lands belonging to the various Departments of the Government of Assam. They were
temporarily allowed to carry on their businesses in the respective places in the aftermath of the destructive fire in the Fancy Bazar market in 1989.
Although the victims of the fire had been rehabilitated in the re-constructed GMC market and some others at Ganeshguri market, but about 28 traders
who were in occupation of the land of the various Departments had been accommodated in the second floor of the re-constructed GMC market at
Fancy Bazar, and accordingly the appellants have no right to carry on their businesses on the plots of land belonging to the Departments under the
State Government. The stand of the respondents was that it would construct a Handloom Haveli in the plots of land which presently are under the
occupation of the appellants.
8. Being aggrieved, the present intra-court appeal has been preferred. In the appeal, a question of law had been raised as regards the procedure to be
followed for eviction of the appellants from the respective plots of land. According to the appellants, it is the stand of the respondent authorities that
their eviction from the land would be carried out pursuant to the procedure under Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules under the Regulations of 1886.
9. In view of the sole ground being taken in these appeals, we would adjudicate only upon the question as to whether the procedure under Rule 18(2)
of the Settlement Rules under the Regulation of 1886 would be the appropriate procedure under the law in the facts and circumstances of the present
case. We refrain from considering or passing any order on merit on the claim of the appellants over the land or the entitlements of the respondent
authorities to evict them from the respective plots of land.
10. As we have already taken note of that all the appellants were put into possession of their respective plots of land through certain instruments made
either by the Department of Agriculture or GMC or other Departments under the Government of Assam, it is an admitted position that the entry of the
appellants to the respective plots of land were not illegitimate, as such entry has taken place through the various instruments issued by the different
departments of the Government of Assam.
11. From the above perspective, when we look into the provisions of Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules under the Regulation of 1886, we take note of
that Rule 18(2) is for the purpose of ejectment, when such person has entered into possession of Government khas land, or waste land or estate over
which no person has acquired the right of a proprietor, land holder or settlement holder or any land that has previously been reserved as roads or
roadside land or for the grazing of village cattle or for other public purposes, or has entered into possession of land from which he has been excluded
by general or special orders and further where, there is no bona fide claim of any right being involved and in such event he may be ejected or ordered
to vacate the land forthwith. Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules under the Regulation of 1886 reads as under:
“Rule 18(2): When such person has entered into possession of Government Khas land, or Waste land or estate over which no person has acquired
the rights of a proprietor, land-holder or Settlement-holder or any land that has previously been reserved roads or roadside land or for the grazing of
village cattle or for other public purposes, or has entered into possession of land from which he has been excluded by general or special orders and
when further, there is no bonafide claim of right involved he may be ejected or ordered to vacate the land forthwith, and the Deputy Commissioner
may sell, confiscate or destroy any crop raised, or any building or other construction erected without authority on the land.â€
12. A reading of Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules under the Regulation of 1886 itself shows that the basic requirement for invoking the Rule is that
the persons who are sought to be evicted has no bona fide claim of any right over the land upon which they may be claiming possession.
13. The very expression that there is no bona fide claim of right shows that entry of such person over the respective plots of land would have to be in
an illegitimate manner or in a manner not recognized by law.
14. In other words, the condition precedent for invoking the provisions of 18(2) of the Settlement Rules under the Regulation of 1886 would be that the
persons who are sought to be evicted in exercise of power under Rule 18(2) would have the possession of land, in question, in an illegitimate manner
or in a manner not recognized by law.
15. From the said point of view, when we look into the factual matrix of the present appeal, we have already noted and concluded that the respective
appellants have entered the respective plots of land through an instrument issued by the different Departments of the Government of Assam and
hence their initial entry to their respective plots of land cannot be said either to be illegitimate or to have been made not in accordance with law.
16. It is another aspect that in course of time the purpose for which they were put into possession was over and perhaps they are no longer entitled to
remain in further possession of the land.
17. If it is so, the remedy for the respondent authorities for evicting the appellants would not be under the provisions of 18(2) of the Settlement Rules
under the Regulation of 1886, but it may be under the provisions of any other law.
18. Accordingly, we interfere with the process of eviction of the appellants by the respondent authorities in exercise of power under Rule 18(2) of the
Settlement Rules under the Regulation of 1886, but, however, providing the liberty to the respondent authorities to proceed for eviction of the
appellants under the provision of any other appropriate law as may be available.
19. In view of our conclusion, the judgment dated 11.10.2018 of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.3300/2012, WP(C)No.3298/2012 and
WP(C)No.4890/2012 is interfered by further providing that such interference with the judgment of the learned Single Judge would be only in respect
of the present appellants.
20. In terms of the above, the writ appeals stand allowed.
