WP(C) 1250/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. SARMA Challenging the action of the District Revenue Administration of Lakhimpur distr ict proposing to evict the petitioner from the land measuring 5 bigha covered by Dag No.40 situated at village-Na-Ali under Mouza- Kadam in the district of Lakh impur, which is a Govt. land, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition. I have heard Mr. D. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. H. Phukan, learned Govt. Advocate representing the respondents. The pleaded case of the petitioner inter-alia is that he has in occupation of th e aforesaid land since last 12 years which was purchased from one Mahendra Sahoo in the year 1996. The said land is bounded by east- road towards Thekeribari g aon from NH 52, west- Subansiri river, north- NH-52 , south - road towards Kuari . The petitioner is also paying revenue in respect of the land and his name was also recorded in the Chitha as possessor. The petitioner has also submitted an application for settlement of the said land before the authority against which a favourable order was passed by the Circle Officer, Kadam Revenue Circle. It is alleged that in spite of the aforesaid situation, a notice under Section 1 8(2) of the Settlement Rule framed under Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 has been issued against him registering an encroachment case being Unauthorised Occupation Case No. 1/09. In the aforesaid premises, the petitioner prayed for quashment of the aforesaid case and the notice served upon him issued under the settlement act. The learned Govt. Advocate has furnished the written instruction received from t he A.D.C., Lakhimpur/ Respondent No.4. On the basis of the said instruction, it is submitted that the land in question is a Govt. land and the same is reserved for Eco Tourism Spot by the Land Advisory Settlement Committee in its meeting held on 26/2/09 and the land is required to be freed from encroachment. Admittedly, the land in question is a Govt. land and petitioner is also paying n ecessary fine for occupation of unauthorized Govt. land in the form of ’Tauzi’. The payment of ’Tauzi’ fine due to an occupation of Govt. land does not confer any right upon an occupant to settle with such Govt. land. The report of the Circle Officer dated 21/1/09 which is relied on heavily by the petitioner in support of his claim for settlement also disclosed that the land in question is a Govt. land and the same does not included under the tribal belt or block and eligible for settlement and since there was no dispute over the la nd, the petitioner is fit person for settling with the same. From the aforesaid report it appears that the land in question has not been settled with the petit ioner at all. The land in question is reserved Govt. land for the purpose of ’Ec ho Tourism Spot’. The Rule 18(2) of the settlement Rules empowers the revenue authority to evict t he encroachers who does not entered into the possession of Govt. land and which is a road side land or is a reserved land or a land reserved for grazing village cattle or any such public purpose and there is no bonafide claim of right invol ved over the land. The right over the land is conferred under Chapter-II of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. The petitioner, admittedly is not settlement holder, not proprietor nor other th an the land holder nor as derived any title of such category of person and it is purely a Govt. land and reserved for public purposed i.e. for ’Echo Tourism Sp ot’. In the case of State of Assam and others -vs- Radha Kanoo and others reported in (1996) 8 SCC 692 overruling the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, t he Apex Court has categorically analyzed that person entering into possession of government land otherwise than pursuant to Rule 16 is an encroacher and liable to be ejected. Administrative instructions issued to the mauzadars for revenue collection do not override the statutory operation of the Regulation and the Rul es. It is further held by the Supreme Court that payment of revenue to mauzadars would not confer any right on such encroachers. That apart, the issuance of impugned Notice issued by the ADC, Lakhijpur is as p er the provision available under Section 140(7) of the Assam Land and Revenue Re gulation. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordin gly the same stands dismissed. The instruction so furnished by the learned Govt. Advocate be kept herewith as a part of record. The Status-Quo order passed on 23/3/09 stands vacated.