WP(C) 2261/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Handique, l earned State counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioner by the present petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.03.2010 directing eviction of the members of the petitioner Samiti, on the gr ound that the land has been preserved as PRG (Bathankari) for grazing of the cat tle of the bathan Karis. According to the petitioner, such order of eviction has been passed without taking into account the fact that the petitioner was allowe d to cultivate the land temporarily, which though was subsequently cancelled on 13.12.1994, by the order passed in the writ petition filed by the members of the petitioner Samiti i.e. Civil Rule No.1655/1995, the respondent authorities were directed to allow the petitioner Samiti to cultivate the land with the conditio n that they will give up the land if required for any public purpose or otherwis e. According to the petitioner, since the village grazing reserve was not consti tuted as required under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, they cannot be evicted from the land in question. It appears from the materials made available before this Court that the petitioner Samiti was earlier allowed to cultivate the land in question temporar ily vide order dated 07.12.1994, which was, however, cancelled within a week the reafter i.e. on 13.12.1994. The said order of cancellation was put to challenge by the petitioner in Civil Rule No.1655/1995. A Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.04.1995 disposed of the said writ petition with the following directions:- 1) The petitioner association shall be allowed to continue cultivation of a land covered by Dag No.1 Seat No.3 and 12 under Mandia Mouza measuring about 51 2 bighas of land as mentioned under order dated 7.12.94. 2) They shall not claim any ownership of the land by virtue of their contin ued cultivation on the basis of this order. For this purpose the petitioner shal l execute a undertaking before the respondent No.3, Addl. Deputy Commissioner, B arpeta. They shall also give a undertaking before respondent No.3 that as and wh en the Government required the land in question for the public purposes or other wise the petitioner shall forthwith make the land available to the Government. T he petitioner shall not claim any compensation. Subject to the aforesaid directi ons, the impugned order dated 13.12.94(Annexure-4) is modified. The members of the petitioner Samiti pursuant to such direction furnishe d undertakings before the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta to vacate the land as and when required by the Government for any public purpose or otherwise. It a ppears from the impugned order dated 10.03.2010 that the land is required for pu blic grazing reserve for grazing of the cattle, for the benefit of public at lar ge. The petitioner having accepted the aforesaid order dated 25.04.1995 passed i n the aforesaid writ petition and having executed undertakings cannot now turn a round and challenge the order of eviction. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and h ence the same is dismissed. It will, however, not preclude the petitioner from filing appropriate ap plication seeking settlement/ allotment of any other land for cultivation and if such application is filed, the same shall definitely be considered by the autho rity in accordance with the land policy as well as the provisions of Assam Land and Revenue Regulation.