This is an appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner resettling land of an annulled patta on Akon Chandra Borah, a brother of the Moudal. (2) No copy of the order settling the land on the respondent is on the record. The original is said to be untraceable. It appears that the Patta in favour of the appellant and other members of his family was annulled in 1935 by the orders of the commissioner as they committed default in the payment of land revenue. The appellant (merely claims that the land should have been resettled on him as he was prepared to pay all arrears of revenue for the period during which there was default in the payment of land re­venue. He also urges that he was petitioning to the Deputy Commissioner for obtaining the land and was also offering to pay arrears due. (3) It appears to me that where a patta is annulled by reason of arrears of land revenue, the pattadar cannot claim that he has got a right to a resettlement of the land on payment] of the arrears of land revenue. The executive instruction to which reference has been made by the learned counsel for the appellant provides as follows: "No land, the settlement of which has been annulled on account of arrears will be resettled with the defaulter or with any member of the joint family to which the defaulter belongs, with­out the special sanction of the Deputy Commis­sioner or Sub-divisional Officer. Such sanction will not be given unless and until the arrears on account of which the settlement has been an­nulled have been first paid, with all costs of proceedings taken for their realisation." (4) This executive direction does not create any right in favour of the persons whose patta has been annulled. It merely embodies a rule that defaulter should not have resettlement of the land without the special sanction of the Deputy Commissioner or 'he Sub-divisional Offi­cer. The discretion to resettle the land on a! defaulter still remains with the Revenue Officer. In these circumstances it is not open to the learned counsel for the appellant to contend that any express direction contained in the law or the rules under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation has been violated by resettlement of the land on the respondent. The discretion to resettle the land on a! defaulter still remains with the Revenue Officer. In these circumstances it is not open to the learned counsel for the appellant to contend that any express direction contained in the law or the rules under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation has been violated by resettlement of the land on the respondent. (5) The second contention that has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that resettlement of the land on the respondent was not valid as he is a brother of the Mandal within whose lot the land is situated. Reliance has been placed in support of this contention on S. 7, Assam Land Records Manual. Clause (2) of S. 7 prohibits a recorder from acquiring land by direct settlement for himself, or for any member of his family living with or in any way dependent upon him. In this case there is nothing on the record to show that the respondent, though admittedly a brother of the Mandal, was either living with him or was in any way dependent on him. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the direction contained in this section has been con­travened. (6) The counsel for the appellant states that some land of the annulled patta has not yet been resettled. So far as this is concerned, the appel­lant should apply to the Deputy Commissioner for resettlement. The application if made shall be duly considered and disposed of according to law. V. B. B. Appeal dismissed.