WP(C) 4995/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. M.H. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. H.M. Phuk an, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioners, by the present petition, have prayed for a direction to the res pondent authorities not to evict them from the land comprised in Dag No.2/41 of PP No.1 of Village-Sarbaherua under Pub Dalgaon Mauza, Udalguri District and als o praying for setting aside the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Udalgu ri under Section 165(3) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. It has b een contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that though against the said notice, which are undated, they approached the Assam Board of Revenue in a n appeal, which was registered as Case No.67RA(UDL)/2011, the said appeal was di smissed vide order dated 12th September, 2011. According to the petitioners, th ey are occupying the land even before creation of the tribal belt and as such, t hey are entitled to possess the land under the tribal belt. The learned counsel , therefore, submits that the respondent authorities may be directed not to evic t the petitioners from the land in question. Per contra, Mrs. Phukan, learned State Counsel submits that though the petitione rs are claiming that they are occupying the land within the tribal area since be fore creation of the tribal belt, the petitioners could not produce any document to substantiate their plea. The learned State Counsel further submits that sin ce the land admittedly falls within the tribal area, the possession of the petit ioners cannot be allowed to be continued in the land since they are not tribal. Though the petitioners, who are non tribal, claim that they are possessing the l and in question since before creation of the tribal belt, nothing has been place d on record to substantiate such plea. That being the position, the petitioner cannot occupy the land within the tribal belt. That apart, Section 165 of Chapt er X of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, which deals with protection of backward classes, empowers the authority to evict the persons from the triba l belt, who are not entitled to occupy land in tribal belt. The petitioners bei ng not entitled to occupy in such land since they are not tribal, no illegality has been committed by the authority in issuing the notice. Consequently no illeg ality has been committed by the Board of Revenue in dismissing the appeal prefer red. In view of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. The respondent authorities shall carry out the eviction operation on expiry of 1 5 (fifteen) days from today.