WP(C) 3204/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. M.U. Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rahman, l earned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 8 and Mr. Das, learned coun sel appearing for the respondent No.9. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition i s taken up for disposal at the order stage itself. The grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that though t he Sub-Divisional Land Advisory Committee of Bilasipara Sub-Division in its proc eeding dated 04.10.2007 decided to recommend the allotment/settlement of 1 katha 2 lechas of land covered by Dag No.68 of village Bilasipara (non-agricultural) and consequently the petitioner deposited the premium for getting allotment/sett lement of the said land, such resolution has been reviewed by the Land Advisory Committee in the subsequent proceeding dated 12.06.2008, without any notice to h im. The respondent No.9 in the miscellaneous application, being Misc. Case N o.2096/2009 filed praying for vacating the interim order passed in the writ proc eeding, has taken the stand that by the subsequent resolution dated 12.06.2008 t he Sub-Divisional Land Advisory Committee decided to recommend allotment/settlem ent of 10 lechas of land out of the aforesaid 1 katha 2 lechas of land, keeping in view the fact that the respondent No.9 is a landless lady and is in occupatio n of the land. The SDO (Civil), the respondent No.5 in the affidavit-in-opposition has stated that the earlier decision of the Sub-Divisional Land Advisory Committee d ated 04.10.2007 had to be reviewed by the subsequent decision dated 12.06.2008 s ince the respondent No.8 is in possession of the land and is a landless widow, w ho has also applied for settlement of 10 lechas of land. According to the said r espondent, no illegality has been committed by Sub-Divisional Land Advisory Comm ittee in reviewing the earlier decision taken on 04.10.2007. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner pursuant to the earlier recommendation of the Sub-Divisional Land Advisory Comm ittee dated 04.10.2007 has deposited the premium on 26.05.2008, the recommendati on of the Committee cannot be altered and/or reviewed without any notice to the petitioner as has been done in the instant case vide the proceeding dated 12.06. 2008. Per contra, the learned State counsel appearing for the State respondent s as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.9 have submitte d that since the respondent No.9 was found to be in possession and landless wido w, who also applied for allotment/settlement of 10 lechas of land in Dag No.68, the Sub-Divisional Land Advisory Committee had to review its earlier decision. I t has also been submitted that since no order of allotment/settlement has been i ssued by the authority in favour of the writ petitioner pursuant to the earlier recommendation of the Sub-Divisional Land Advisory Committee dated 04.10.2007, d eposit of the premium would not create any right in favour of the petitioner. It appears from the materials made available on record that the Sub-Divi sional Land Advisory Committee in its proceeding dated 04.10.2007 initially deci ded to recommend the allotment/settlement of the land measuring 1 katha 2 lechas covered by Dag No.68 in favour of the petitioner. Such recommendation, however, was reviewed by the said Committee in the subsequent proceeding dated 12.06.200 8, recommending allotment/settlement of 10 lechas of land in favour of the respo ndent No.9 out of 1 katha 2 lechas covered by Dag No.68 of village Bilasipara (n on-agricultural). It is not in dispute that the settling authority is yet to accept the re commendation of the Sub-Divisional Land Advisory Committee either of dated 04.10 .2007 or dated 12.06.2008. Though the petitioner has deposited the premium pursu ant to the earlier recommendation dated 04.10.2007 of the Land Advisory Committe e, since no order of allotment/settlement has been issued accepting such recomme ndation by the settling authority, no right is accrued in favour of the petition er only by virtue of making such deposit. It also appears that both the parties are claiming the land. While the petitioner is claiming the entire land of 1 kat ha 2 lechas, the respondent No.9 is claiming 10 lechas of land out of the said l and. The Land Advisory Committee’s recommendation being advisory in nature, the settling authority for good and sufficient reason may not accept the recommendat ion. As discussed above, the settling authority, in this case the Government, is yet to take a decision on the recommendation. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of by directing t he Commissioner and Secretary, Revenue and Settlement Department, Govt. of Assam to take a final decision in the matter of allotment/settlement taking into acco unt the recommendation of the Land Advisory Committee and pass necessary order. The Commissioner and Secretary while taking a decision in that regard shall also take into consideration as to whether the petitioner or the respondent No.9 is entitled to settlement or not under the provisions of Assam Land and Revenue Reg ulation as well as the land policy. It is needless to say that the representatio n submitted by the petitioner on 15.06.2008 shall also be taken into considerati on by the Commissioner and Secretary while taking decision in that regard. The s aid exercise is directed to be completed within a period of 3(three) months from today. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.