WP(C) 3960/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. G. Bokalial, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Phukan, learned State counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioner by the present petition has challenged the eviction notic e issued by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup(Metro) in Encroachment Case No .1/2011, issued under Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Lan d and Revenue Regulation, asking the petitioner to vacate the land measuring 13 bighas 0 katha 8 lechas in Dag No.491, 493, 499, 488, 492, 490, 500 in village-G horamarajan Pam under mouza-Mayang, which is the Government land, on the ground that he is an encroacher in respect of the said land. The petitioner in the writ petition though projected that the said land is covered by an annual patta being Patta No.277 issued by the authority and hen ce the notice under Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules cannot be issued, consequent ly the petitioner cannot be evicted as he is not an unauthorized occupant, he, h owever, despite the order dated 05.08.2011 directing him to produce a copy of th e annual patta fixing 07.09.2011 for that purpose, could not produce the same. O n 07.09.2011 a further opportunity was also given to the petitioner to produce s uch annual patta fixing today for production of the same. The learned counsel fo r the petitioner submits that since the annual has not been made available to hi m by the petitioner, he could not produce the same before this Court despite the aforesaid orders passed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has been possessi ng the said land for last 9(nine) years by cultivating paddy and is a landless p erson, hence entitled to settlement and as such the respondents may be directed not to evict him from the land under his possession. Mrs. Phukan, learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted tha t the land is the Government land, which is evident from receipt, realizing the Tozibahi revenue, which is a fine for occupying the Government land unauthorised ly, as annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-A series. The learned counsel fu rther submits that since the petitioner has not been authorized to occupy the sa id Government land, no illegality has been committed by the Addl. Deputy Commiss ioner in issuing the notice of eviction. Perusal of the Annexure-A reveals that certain amount has been realized as Tozibahi Revenue from the petitioner, towards the fine for occupying the Gove rnment land unauthorisedly. That apart, though the petitioner claimed that the a nnual patta in respect of the said land was issued, he has failed to produce the copy of such annual patta despite the opportunity given. That being the position, I do not find any merit in the present writ pet ition to interfere with the notice of eviction issued by the Addl. Deputy Commis sioner. It would however not preclude the petitioner from filing appropriate app lication for allotment/settlement of the land. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observations. No cost.