WP(C) 3068/2005 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. A. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H.K. Barman, learned govt. Advocate who represents the respondents. 2. The petitioner, which is a registered Farming Co-operative Society and i s in occupation of a large area of land measuring 589 bighas 3 kathas 8 lessas c overed by Dag No. 154 of Khalihai village under Sipajhar Mouza of Darrang distri ct, is before this Court, apprehending eviction from their occupied land, at the instance of the Forest authorities of the State. 3. Mr. A. Sarma, learned counsel representing the petitioner contends that on the strength of Govt. decision to settle the above land in favour of the peti tioner, directions were given by the letter dated 9.5.97 by the Revenue Departme nt for payment of premium for getting settlement of the land in question. Therea fter the premium for the land was quantified at Rs. 2,94,840/- (Rupees two lacks ninety four thousand eight hundred forty) only @ Rs. 2,500/- per bigha and aft er the petitioner deposited the said premium on 11.1.2000, the petitioner was ha nded over the possession of the land by the Settlement Officer, Sipajhar Revenue Circle on 15.3.2000 (Annexure-V). Thereafter the Revenue records were also corr ected and the petitioner was issued a new patta No. 84 in respect of the 589 big has 3 kathas and 8 lessas of land and the land in question was classified as Far ming land. 4. The above claim of the petitioner that the land has been duly settled wi th them on payment of premium has been confirmed through the counter affidavit d ated 4.2.09 filed by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Darrang. But in the affidavit filed on 15.9.08 by the DFO, Rangia on behalf of re spondents No. 2 and 4, it is indicated that the petitioners have encroached into forest land within Khalihai Reserve Forest (notified on 23.10.78).It is also av erred that a joint verification with the Revenue authorities was proposed to det ermine whether the petitioner is encroaching on any Forest land under the Reserv e Forest area. Furthermore the Forest authorities contend that the settlement o f Reserve Forest land, for Non-Forest activity is prohibited under the provision s of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. 5. Having regard to the above, I find herein that the petitioner has been a ble to establish that 589 bighas 3 kathas and 8 lessas of land under Dag No. 84 has been settled with them and they are entitled to occupy the said land, by vir tue of the settlement granted to them by the Revenue authorities. But if the set tled land is a part of Reserve Forest land or the petitioner has encroached into the Reserve Forest land beyond the settled land, the right of the petitioner to claim possession over such land gets clouded. 6. It further appears that appropriate verification of the land area in co- ordination of the Revenue and Forest Department, did not materialize since, as i t is averred, the Revenue authorities did not take further action for joint veri fication although such a joint verification exercise was suggested by the Forest authorities. 7. In view of above, I dispose of this writ petition by declaring that the petitioner may not be evicted from the land settled with them during the subsist ence of the settlement/patta in their favour. 8. However, it is made clear that by this order, the Court is not stopping the respondent authorities from conducting a verification of the land under occu pation of the petitioner, to determine if the petitioner Society and its members are in occupation of land in the Reserve Forest area or have encroached upon su ch land and take appropriate action thereafter on the basis of such joint verifi cation. 9. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.