WP(C) 5608/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr. PK Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Si ngh, learned State Counsel, Assam. Being apprehensive of forceful eviction from the land in their o ccupation measuring 512 Bighas covered by Dag No. 1, Seat No. 3 and 12 under the Mandia Mouza, the petitioner, a body representing its occupant members seeks ju dicial intervention for redress. On an earlier occasion being confronted with an identical situat ion, the petitioner had approached this Court with CR No. 1655/1995, which was d isposed of with the following operative directions: - 1) The petitioner association shall allow to continue cultivation of a land covered by Dag No. 1 Seat No. 3 and 12 under Mandia Mouza measurin g about 512 Bighas of land as mentioned under order dated 07.12.1994. 2) They shall not claim any ownership of the land by virtue of their continued cultivation on the basis of this order. For this purposes the petitioner shall execute an undertaking before the respondent No. 3, Addl. Depu ty Commissioner, Barpeta. They shall also give an undertaking before respo ndent No. 3 that as and when the Government required the land in question for the public purposes or otherwise the petitioner shall forthwith make the land available to the Government. The petitioner shall not claim any co mpensation. Subject to the aforesaid direction the impugned order dated 13.12.1994 (Annexure-4) is modified. As it would be apparent from hereinabove, the petitioners were a llowed to continue to cultivate the land involved without claiming any ownership therein. It was supposed to execute an undertaking before the Addl. Deputy Com missioner, Barpeta to the effect that it would forthwith make the land available to the Government as and when it (Government) required it for public purpose or otherwise. It was clarified that in such an eventuality the petitioner would n ot be entitled to any compassion as well. There is no wrangle at the Bar that this order has remained unas sailed in any forum and, therefore, exists in the form as contained in the above extract. The petitioners, thus, have no right of ownership in the land and the co ntinuance of possession of the members thereof is circumscribed by the condition s laid down by this Court as above. The petitioner is before this Court again f acing imminent eviction from the same land. The documents appended to the petit ion, amongst others, include a notice issued from the Office of the Deputy Commi ssioner, Barpeta, to one Shri Amser Ali, President of the petitioner-committee a sking him to appear before the concerned authority for a decision on his represe ntation dated 07.12.2009. The contents of the said representation (Annexure 5 t o the writ petition), are a reiteration of the averments made herein on behalf o f the members of the petitioners’ Samitee, justifying continuance of their posse ssion of the land involved with a prayer against their eviction therefrom. When queried by this Court, the Deputy Commissioner, by his lett er No.BRSE-11/93/84, dated 22.12.2009 has intimated the Senior Govt. Advocate, G auhati High Court that the land in question is required for grazing purposes. In the above view of the matter, having regard to the conditions enumerated in the order dated 25.04.1995 of this Court passed in CR No. 1655/19 95, it is considered expedient to leave the petitioner at its discretion to subm it an appropriate representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta to rais e all pleas available to it in law on the issue. If such a representation is su bmitted, the aforementioned authority would dispose of the same on merits, howev er, strictly in accordance with law. The petition stands closed in the above te rms. No costs.