WP(C) 6136/2002 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY The petitioners by the present petition has challenged the communication dated 2 6th May, 1998 issued by the under Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue (Settlement) Department to the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup intimating that the Government of Assam has planned to resume the acquired land measuring 1 Bigha co vered by Dag No.132 of village- Sarumotoria under Beltola Mouza from General Adm inistration Department and to settle the same in favour of Sri Binod Goala for c onstruction of Kushal Bhavan subject to payment of 25% land value as premium a nd utilization of the land for the purpose for which settlement is given. I have heard Mr. S. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. J. Handiq ue, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4. A mention has been made by Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for adjournment on the gr ound that yesterday, i.e. on 3rd January, 2011, he has been informed by the resp ondent No.5, Sri Binod Goala, that he might be required to appear before this Co urt to contest this proceeding. On being asked, the learned counsel, however, h as submitted that today he is not in a position to argue the case and it is not possible on the part of the respondent No.5 to come and appear and engage the le arned counsel even by day after tomorrow, i.e. on 6th January, 2011. It appears from the note of the Registry dated 7th July, 2004 that the responden t No.5 was served in the year 2004 itself. The writ petition, however, was dism issed for default on 11th June, 2010 and thereafter, an application being Misc. Application No.2462/2010 was filed for recalling the said order and for restorat ion of the writ petition to file in its original number. The record reveals tha t though the notices in Misc. Case No.2462/2010 has been served, the respondent No.5 even did not contest the said proceeding, i.e. the application for restorat ion of the writ petition to file. The writ petition having been filed in the ye ar 2002, though the respondent No.5 has been served, he has not contested the pr oceeding. In view of the above, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal tod ay itself by refusing the prayer for adjournment. It is the case of the petitioners in the present petition that they are possessi ng the land, which was proposed to be allotted in favour of the respondent No.5, since the year 1980 by constructing the dwelling houses and residing thereon. It is also the case of the petitioners that though the land was earlier acquired for setting up of temporary capital complex, the land under possession of the p etitioners, however, has not been utilized for that purpose and accordingly resu med by the Revenue Department. The further case of the petitioners is that purs uant to the land policy formulated by the Government of Assam, they filed the ap plications for allotment, which were duly processed and even the report was subm itted by the revenue official to the Assistant Settlement Officer on 4th January 1995 and despite the pendency of such applications seeking allotment/settlement of the land, the Government, by the impugned communication dated 26th May, 1998 planned to allot the land in favour of the respondent No.5 without even botheri ng to consider the applications filed by the petitioners for allotment/settlemen t. The petitioners’ basic grievance is relating to the decision of the Governmen t to allot the land, though no formal order of allotment has been issued in favo ur of the respondent No.5, without considering their applications for allotment claiming that under the land policy, they are entitled to be considered for allo tment. No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by any of the respondents despite serv ice of notice and pendency of the writ petition since the year 2002. The un-rebutted factual position in the present petition is that the petitioners are possessing the land in question since the year 1980 by constructing the dwe lling houses and residing thereon and though they have filled the applications s eeking allotment/settlement and the report was submitted by the revenue official to the Assistant Settlement Officer on 4th January, 1995, the Government planne d to settle the land in favour of the respondent No.5, which is reflected in the impugned communication dated 26th May, 1998 issued by the under Secretary to th e Government of Assam to the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup. It is not that the Go vernment cannot pass an order of settlement in favour of any person. However, w hile doing so, the Government is to consider the applications, if any, filed by any other person for settlement/allotment of the said land, which evidently has not been done in the instant case though the applications filed by the petitione rs for allotment/settlement are pending and they claimed to be entitled for cons ideration for allotment/settlement under the land policy of Assam. The communic ation dated 26th May, 1998 issued by the under Secretary also reveals that the G overnment has planned to settle the land in favour of the respondent No.5. It i s also not the case of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 or the respondent No.5 that a f inal order of settlement has been passed and the respondent No.5 has paid the pr emium in respect of the land in question and pursuant to any order of settlement passed by the competent authority. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present petition is disposed of with th e direction to the respondent Nos.1 and 4 to consider the case of the petitioner s alongwith the case of the respondent No.5 and also the other persons, if any, who have applied for such allotment of the aforesaid land, for allotment/ settle ment afresh, in accordance with the provisions of the Assam Land and Revenue Reg ulation, 1886 and the land policy of Assam and to take a fresh decision in that regard within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of the certifi ed copy of this order to be produced either by the petitioner or by the responde nt No.5 before the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenu e (Settlement) Department and the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No cost. It needless to say that till the final order is passed, status quo as regards th e possession of the land in question as on today, shall be maintained.