WA 270/2006 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY (Ranjan Gogoi, J.) Heard Mr. AS Dasgupta, learned counsel for the appellants; Mr. P .S. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the official respondents and Mr. A.K. Go swami, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 2. This appeal is directed against an order dated 13.4.2006 passed in a proceeding registered and numbered as W.P.(C) No.5977 of 2005. By the afore said order, the learned Single Judge hearing the writ petition has thought it pr oper to dismiss the same on the grounds and reasons recorded in the order. The c hallenge in the writ petition, in the main, was against the notices of eviction dated 1.8.2005 issued to the appellants/writ petitioners under the provisions of Rule 18(3) of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regu lations, 1886. 3. The brief facts that will be required to be noticed for the purp ose of present adjudication and which are not in dispute may be enumerated herei nafter. An area of approximately 170 bighas of Government Land was settl ed with 17 families in the year 1975. The settlement orders made in favour of th e aforesaid persons were cancelled in the year 1997. There was no challenge to the orders of cancellation and, therefore, the same attained finality in law. Th e appellants-writ petitioners, 28 in number, claim linkage to the aforesaid 17 f amilies though the materials on record do not formally establish the said fact. After the cancellation of the settlements in the year 1997, a portion of the lan d measuring roughly 79 bighas was settled with the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 by an order dated 29.11.2003. By order dated 5.12.2003 the settlement was converted t o an allotment. The aforesaid order dated 5.12.2003 was challenged by the Respon dent Nos. 4 and 5 in a writ petition filed before this Court i.e. Writ Petition (C) No.3350 of 2004. In the said writ petition, an additional prayer for handing over of possession was also made. During the pendency of the writ petition, by order dated 3.3.2005, the settlement in favour of the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 wa s reiterated leading to the closure of the writ petition on 24.5.2005. The writ petition was closed by the aforesaid order with a further direction to the Deput y Commissioner, Nagaon to execute the necessary formalities, such as, giving pos session of the land to the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and for correction of the rev enue records. Thereafter, eviction notices were issued on 1.8.2005 to the 28 app ellants, who had instituted W.P.(C) No.5977 of 2005, out of which this appeal ha s arisen. 4. Writ Petition (C) No. 5977 of 2005 was disposed of by this Court by the impugned order dated 13.4.2006, inter alia, on the basis of the statemen ts made by the learned counsel for the petitioners to the effect that as the lan d had been settled with the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, the petitioners would vacat e the said land if reasonable time is granted to them. Accordingly, the Court, b y its order dated 13.4.2006, granted 70 days time to the appellants-writ petitio ners for vacating the land in question and also directed the Government to consi der the cases of the appellants-writ petitioners for settlement/allotment of alt ernative land. It may also be put on record at this stage that pursuant to the o rder of the learned Single Judge, possession of approximately 74 bighas of land out of 79 bighas settled was handed over to the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 on 25.6. 2006. 5. The writ petitioners have not been able to lay any materials bef ore this Court to show any linkage or connection with the original 17 families w ho were settled with the land in the year 1975. Even assuming that the petition ers have some connection or linkage with the original 17 families, the settlemen t made in favour of the said families had been cancelled in the year 1997 and, a s already noticed, no challenge was brought against such cancellations thereby a llowing the cancellations to attain finality in law. That apart, before the lear ned Single Judge, it was agreed on behalf of the petitioners that they would vac ate the land if reasonable time is granted to them. In such circumstances, it is difficult to see as to how the petitioner could be heard at this stage to say t hat the impugned eviction notices are unauthorized or contrary to law. 6. A submission has been made by Shri Dasgupta, learned counsel for the petitioners that once the land was settled with the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 , the same became private land and eviction therefrom cannot be made by means of notice(s) under Rule 18(3) of the Settlement Rules, as has been sought to be do ne in the present. The argument advanced leaves us unimpressed. If settlement of the Government land is made in favour of any individual, resort to the provisio ns of the Rules can be made for the purpose of securing vacant position of the l and settled in the event the same is occupied by encroachers. This is precisely what has happened in the present case. In the present case resort to the provisi ons of the Settlement Rules to obtain vacant possession of the land was to give full effect to the order of settlement as well as to the order of this Court dat ed 24.5.2005 passed in W.P.(C) No.3350/2004. Consequently, the same cannot be un derstood to be unauthorized in law. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this appe al. Writ appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstan ces of the case, we make no order as to costs.