WA 315/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR J CHELAMESWAR HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AC UPADHYAY Aggrieved by judgment dated 10-5-07 in WP(C) No.5621/06 the unsuccessful petitio ners therein preferred the present appeal. 2. The appellants, 78 in number, approached the Revenue Board of the State of Assam invoking the jurisdiction of the Revenue Board under Section 147 of the Assam Land Revenue Regulation, 1886. The Revenue Board rejected the said appeal on the ground that it is not maintainable. Hence the appellants approached this court by way of a writ petition. By the order under appeal the writ petition wa s dismissed. 3. A kind of public notice dated 26-12-05 by way of a pamphlet ostensibly at the behest of the 4th respondent herein was circulated. The substance of the pamphlet is that by Resolution No.7 dated 28-3-03 of the Udalguri Land Advisory Committee 155 Bighas of land in Dag No.2 of Village- Sarbaherua under Pub Dalgao n Mouza have been mutated in the name of the Green Valley Tea Firm, Routa and al so the possession of the said piece of land was delivered to the said Green Vall ey Tea Firm. By the said publication all those who were cultivating the above me ntioned land were cautioned to keep away from the land following which the Green Valley Tea Firm will not be responsible for any loss to any individual. The fac t that such a settlement was made in favour of the Green Valley Tea Firm to the extent of 155 Bighas described above is not in dispute. 4. The appellants claim to be persons who have been in possession of variou s parcels of land in the above mentioned extent of 155 Bighas and cultivating th e same for some time (around 25 years and afterwards). At any rate, as to what e xactly is the nature and duration of the possession of each of the appellants is a question of fact to be determined in appropriate proceeding. 5. Aggrieved by the above mentioned pamphlet the appellants herein preferre d an appeal invoking the jurisdiction of the Revenue Board under Section 147 of the above mentioned Regulation. 6. The Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 deals with various aspects o f settlement of land within the State of Assam. The details of the entire scheme of the Regulation may not be necessary for the purpose of determining the prese nt appeal. However, Chapter X of the said Regulation deals with the protection o f backward classes in the context of settlement of land. Section 160(1) of the R egulation authorises the State Government to take such appropriate measures as t he State Govt may deem fit for protection of the backward classes. Sub Section ( 2) of Section 160 authorises the State Govt to specify by notification in the of ficial gazette the classes of people whom it considers entitled for such protect ion contemplated under Section 160(1). 160.(1) Notwithstanding anything herein before contained the State Government m ay adopt such measures as it deems fit for the protection of those classes who o n account of their primitive condition and lack of education or material advanta ges are incapable of looking after their welfare in so far as such welfare depen ds upon their having sufficient land for their maintenance. 7. Section 161 of the Regulation contemplates the constitution of compact a reas into belts or blocks, the compact areas being regions predominantly occupie d by people notified under Section 160(2). 8. Section 162 authorised the State Govt to extend the operation of Chapter X to such areas which are notified under Section 161. It further declares that on such application the rights and obligations in and over land shall be governe d by the provisions of Chapter X. Sub-Section (2) of Section 162 declares that n o person shall acquire or possess either by transfer, exchange, lease, agreement or settlement any land in any area or areas constituted into belts or blocks ex cept in accordance with the scheme of Chapter X. 9. The other provision which is required to be noticed in the context of th e present case is Section 164 which prohibits the transfer by a landlord of any land in a belt or block to any person other than a person belonging to a cl ss notified under Section 160 of the Regulation and also to a person though belo ng to such a class but not a permanent resident of that belt or block. Any trans fer in contravention of such a declaration made under Section 164 is declared to be a punishable offence under Section 164-B. Section 165 of the Regulation deal s with eviction of encroachers of an unsettled land (govt land). 10. The 4th respondent is a registered partnership firm and it is claimed th at all the partners of the firm belong to the class notified under Section 160(2 ). It is also asserted by the 4th respondent that none of the appellants belong to any one of the protected classes. This fact is not disputed by the appellants . 11. The appeal preferred by the appellants herein before the Revenue Board w as rejected on the ground that the appeal is not maintainable. Section 147 of th e above mentioned Regulation, which was invoked while preferring the appeal to t he Revenue Board, reads as follows :- 147. Authority to whom appeals lie. - Appeals shall lie under this Regulation as follows:- (a) To the Board from orders, original or appellate passed by a Deputy Commissio ner Settlement officer or Survey officer; (b) To the Deputy Commissioner, from orders passed by a Sub-divisional Officer, an Assistant Commissioner or Extra Assistant Commissioner; (c) To the Settlement Officer, from orders passed by an Assistant Settlement Off icer; (d) To a Survey Officer, from orders passed by an Assistant Survey Officer: Provided that no appeal shall lie against the following orders:- (i) Orders of an Assistant Settlement Officer or Assistant Survey Officer under section 21 and 22; (ii) Orders of a Survey Officer or Settlement Officer; (1) Under Section 21, 22, and 24; (2) Apportioning the expense of erecting and repairing boundary-marks in accorda nce with rules made under section 27; (iii) Orders of a Survey Officer, Settlement Officer or Deputy Commissioner, ori ginal or appellate imposing or confirming a fine not exceeding fifty rupees; (iv) Orders of a Deputy Commissioner under section 79 setting aside or refusing to set aside the sale; (v) Any decision given in accordance with an award of arbitrators appointed unde r section 143, except in the case of fraud or collusion; (vi) Orders under section 148, admitting an appeal after the period of limitatio n has expired; (vii) Orders expressly declared by this Regulation to be final subject to the pr ovision of section 151. It is obvious from the language of the Section that an appeal under the said Section is maintainable if only preferred against any one of the orders enu merated therein. In the instant case the appeal was not against any one of the o rders enumerated under Section 147. Therefore, in our opinion, the appeal was ri ghtly rejected on the ground that it is not maintainable. But that does not nece ssarily mean that the 4th respondents or for that matter any other person includ ing the State can evict the appellants or any other person who is in possession of any parcel of land, which is the subject matter of dispute in the instant app eal, in a high handed manner without following the appropriate procedure of law. It is a settled principle of law that even an encroacher is required to be evic ted from land in accordance with procedure established by law. It is a different matter as to what exactly is the procedure to be invoked in a given case. It ma y vary depending upon the law applicable to the parties. Such procedure may be f iling of a civil suit for eviction in a given set of circumstances or it can be a summary procedure of eviction authorised by law. However, we are not determini ng as to what exactly is the procedure for eviction of the appellants but only m ake it clear that the appellants cannot be evicted without following the appropr iate procedure of law. 12. In the above mentioned background we see no reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed, however, with the o bservation that the appellants shall not be dispossessed of the property except in accordance with the procedure established by law. 13. Mr AK Goswami, learned senior counsel for the appellants specifically su bmitted that the observation made by the Revenue Board while dismissing the appe al to the effect that the appellants herein be evicted without delay, is not con sistent with the scheme of the Regulation as the Board of Revenue has no authori ty even to give such a direction nor such an observation is justified in the fac tual context of the case. 14. On the other hand Mr I Choudhury, learned counsel for the 4th respondent argued that under Section 165 of the Regulation it is permissible to evict the appellants by resorting to a summary proceeding contemplated under Section 165(3 ). 15. We refrain from making any expression on the scope of Section 165(3) in the instant case for the reason that it requires an appropriate pleading and als o a thorough examination of the scope of Section 165(3). It shall be open to the appellants to raise an objection regarding applicability of Section 165(3) as a nd when such a procedure is sought to be invoked against the appellants. 16. The appeal stands dismissed.