WP(C) 4278/2001 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. P. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. H.M. Phukan, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioners 22 in numbers, by the present petition have prayed for a directi on to the respondent authorities not to evict them from the land under their pos session in Dag No.2362 of Sahar Sarania Part-II under Ulubari Mouza, Guwahati in the district of Kamrup, Assam without following the due process of law and with out disposal of their applications seeking allotment/settlement of the land. Mr. Upadhayay, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petiti oners are possessing different plots of land measuring between 1‰ to 2‰ Kathas i n Dag No.2362 of Sahar Sarania Part-II under Ulubari Mouza for a long period of time and though they filed applications seeking allotment/ settlement of their l and, the authority has not disposed of such applications and instead making an a ttempt to evict them from the land under their possession, for which the petitio ners have to approach this Court by way of a writ petition. Mr. Upadhayay, learn ed counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent authorities may be di rected not to evict the petitioners from the land in question without following the due process of law and without disposal of the applications filed for allotm ent /settlement of the land. Mrs. Phukan, learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that admitt edly the petitioners are possessing the Government land unauthorisedly without t here being any order and as such they are evictable under Rule 18 of the settlem ent rules framed under the provisions of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 (in short, 1886 Regulation ). The learned State Counsel further submits th at it is for the authority to decide as to whether the petitioners are entitled to any settlement/allotment and whether the land, which the petitioners are poss essing are available for settlement or not, as according to the instruction, the said land has already been allotted for Gandhi Mandap at Gandhibasti. This Court vide order dated 11th February, 2011 after noticing the fact that the land in Dag No.2362 under Sahar Sarania Part-II under Ulubari Mouza may be requ ired for protection of the Gandhi Mandap at Gandhibasti, gave the respondents a last opportunity for 4 (four) weeks to file counter affidavit. The State respon dents, however, for the reasons based known to them, have not filed any affidavi t-in-opposition till today despite expiry of 5 (five) months thereafter. The wr it petition is pending since 2001 and an interim protection was granted to the p etitioners on 18th July, 2001. That being the position, I have no alternative but to dispose of the writ petiti on on the basis of the averments made by the writ petitioners in the writ petiti on. The claim of the writ petitioners, as noticed above, is that they are possessing the land in the aforesaid Dag for a long period of time and though they have fi led applications for allotment/settlement of the land, nothing has been done by the respondent authorities till date and instead the respondents are making an a ttempt to evict them without following the due process of law. Since the possession of the petitioners over the Government land is not in dispu te, they are evictable, provided the due process of law, as enumerated in Rule 1 8 of the settlement rules framed under 1886 Regulation, is followed. The respon dent authorities are, therefore, directed not to evict the petitioners without f ollowing the due process of law, i.e. without issuing any notice to them. The r espondent authorities shall also consider the application, if any, filed by the petitioners for allotment/settlement of the land under their possession, provide d such land is available for settlement and is not required for any public purpo se including the protection of Gandhi Mandap at Gandhibasti. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.