WP(C) 3287/2002 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P.KATAKEY None appears for the petitioners. Mr B. Choudhury, learned state counsel is present. The petitioners have filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondent authorities not to evict them from the land measuring 2K-15L covered by dag no.27 (old) 861(new) of KM Patta No.12(old) 201(new) under revenue villag e Fatashil (N.K), Mouza Jalukbari, Guwahati contending interalia that the petiti oner no.1 purchased a plot of land measuring 1K-5L covered by dag no.27(old) 861 (new) of KM Patta No.12(old) 201(new) of revenue village Fatasil(NK), Mouza - J alukbari from one Smti Lakhi Prava Medhi by a registered deed of sale dated 28.2 .1992, and the petitioner no.2 purchased a plot of land measuring 1K-10L covered by dag no.27(old) 861(new) of KM Patta No.12(old) 201(new) under revenue villag e Fatasil(NK) of Jalukbari mouza from the said Smti Lakhi Prava Medhi by another registered deed of sale dated 28.8.92. According to the petitioners, they are p ossessing the said land by right of purchase. Further case of the petitioners is that the officials of the forest department in the garb of eviction of encroach ers from the forest land have evicted a large number of families from their resp ective plots of land, though those are not forest land, which gave rise to the a pprehension in the minds of the petitioners that they may also be evicted from t heir lands in question. This Court while issuing Rule vide order dated 22.5.2002 passed an inter im order directing the respondents not to evict the petitioners from their lands except in accordance with law and without following the due procedure, however, making it clear that if the land is a reserved forest land or wet land area, th e respondents may proceed with the eviction process as per law. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no.4 i.e. the Div isional Forest Officer, Kamrup East Division, Kamrup, it is contended that the F orest Department undertook an eviction drive for evicting the encroachers from t he reserved forest land and if the petitioners occupy any reserved forest land, they would be evicted. The petitioners though claimed that the land was purchased by them from its owner by registered deed of sale but failed to produce any registered sale d eed before this Court, nor annexed any copy of the order passed by the Revenue D epartment mutating their names in the revenue records. The apprehension of the petitioners is that they may be evicted from the ir respective plots of land without following the due process of law. If the pet itioners have purchased any Miadi patta land and they have acquired any title ov er there, they cannot be evicted there-from without there being a decree passed by the competent civil Court. The petitioners, however, are not entitled to occu py any government land or the forest land, which is not settled with them. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to verify as to whether the petitioners are in pos session of any government land and/or forest land and, if so, to evict them by f ollowing due process of law, if not already evicted. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.