JUDGMENT Woodroffe, J. - No. 1966, sec. 6 (a) of Reg. I of 1886 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, Chap. II, provides that no right of any description shall be deemed to have been, or shall be, acquired by any person over any land to which this chapter applies," except the lights that are mentioned in cls. (a), (b), (c) and (d). In the lower Appellate Court the argument appears to have been that cls. (a), (b), and (c) did not apply, but that cl. (d) did. The learned District Judge held that cl. (d) did not apply as is, in fact, the case. Here, however, it has been contended that the portion of the section which applies is the last portion of sec. 6 (a), namely, the words, " other rights acquired in manner provided by this Regulation." Then, it is said that the right which has been acquired " in the manner provided by this Regulation" is a right which is conferred on the public by virtue of Rule 80, cl. (i) framed by the Chief Commissioner, which lays down that, " should more than one person apply for the same land, the application which has been first received shall ordinarily be granted, but the settlement officer may, if he thinks fit, for special reasons (to be recorded in the order) grant any subsequent application and reject the first." And it has been contended that that confers a right upon any person who is the first to apply for a set dement, if no reasons are recorded against the grant of his application; and reference has been made to two decisions, Madhab Nath v. Myarani Medhi ILR 17 Cal. 819 (1890) and Patan Maria v. Bhabiram Dutt ILR 21 Cal. 239 (1896), in support of this contention. But in the first of these cases it appears to have been held that a right had been shown such as is specified in sec. 6, namely, a right to have excess land settled in favour of the holder of the land from which it had been taken as excess. In the second case, which was one in second appeal the judgment accepted the facts as found by the first Court. It was there decided that the suit was not excluded from the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. In the second case, which was one in second appeal the judgment accepted the facts as found by the first Court. It was there decided that the suit was not excluded from the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. What the right was there is not clear from the report; but this is clear, that the facts are totally different from those now before us. In my opinion the rule is one which has been laid down for the guidance of Settlement Officers in making their settlements. The legislature has given directions to them. It is, however, said that in exercising this discretion in a particular case, the officer should record his reasons in writing. It does not follow from this that if the reasons are not recorded, the Plaintiff is en-titled to a settlement, although such reasons exist, in fact, and although the Government does not wish to give the land to him. In the present case, it has been found, as a matter of fact, that reasons do exist as to why the land should not be settled with the Appellant, although those reasons were not recorded. What has happened is this; that there has been an informality in this respect. In my opinion this Rule, being for the guidance of Settlement Officers, did not confer upon the applicant any right by reason of his merely having been the first to make an application for settlement, which would bring him within the purview of section 6 (a) of the Regulation. 2. In these circumstances this appeal must be dismissed with costs. 3. In Appeal No. 1922 of 1908, the facts are similar to those of the appeal just decided, except, that it does not appear in this particular case what the reasons were which were the cause of the rejection of the Appellant's applications for settlement. For the same reasons as those stated in the judgment in Appeal No. 1966 of 1908, 1 think that this appeal fails and should be dismissed with costs. 4. In the first of these cases the Government undertakes to refund to the Appellant the costs which he states he has paid for the survey proceedings which are alleged to have been carried out at his instance. A similar under-taking is given by the Government in the second case. 4. In the first of these cases the Government undertakes to refund to the Appellant the costs which he states he has paid for the survey proceedings which are alleged to have been carried out at his instance. A similar under-taking is given by the Government in the second case. Two sets of costs should be allowed in each of these appeals :--one for the Government and the other to the lessees. Richardson, J. 5. I agree.