JUDGMENT Ganendra Nath Ray, J. 1. In this Rule, purported settlement of 3.17 acres of land appertaining to Herobhanga Jharkhali Government Colony No.1 in favour of Respondent No.8 Manibar Mondal is under challenge. 2. The petitioner's case is that he is a bonafide displaced Refugee from the then East Pakistan and after coming to India he has given settlement of the said 3.11 acres of land in the aforesaid Herobhanga Jharkhali Government Colony No.1 on payment of seasonal rent of Rs. 16/- per acre. It is stated by the petitioner that the aforesaid Colony is Government Sponsored Colony wherein the Refugee from the then East Pakistan were settled and each of the said Refugees was allotted 10 bighas of lands for the purpose of cultivation and stay. The petitioner's further case is that pursuant to a direction of the Sub-divisional Officer, Sadar (R/R), Alipore, 24 Parganas, as contained in Memo. No. S.R. 718 dated 17.5.1965 the Petitioner produced the relevant documents in support of his case that he was a bonafide refugee from the then East Pakistan. It further transpires that the Additional Rehabilitation Officer, Sadar, Refugee Rehabilitation, 24 Parganas, by his Memo, dated 6.7.1966 addressed to Upendra Sarkar and Adhir Kumar Mondal directed the said two persons to allow the petitioner to cultivate five bighas of land from the allotted khas land which would be given in their names. It also appears from the document annexed to the petition that from time to time the petitioner deposited seasonal rent at the rate of Rs. 16/- per acre for his occupation of the aforesaid lands in the said Colony. The petitioner's case is that he is a bona fide refugee and he also produced relevant documents and registers in support of his case that he is a bonafide refugee. Then was no occasion on the part of the State Government to proceed on the footing that the petitioner was not a bonafide refugee and as such a permanent settlement ought to have been granted to the petitioner in respect of the said lands. There is no Affidavit-in-opposition in the instant Rule from the said Respondents wherein the allegations of the petitioner that he produced all relevant registers and documents in support of his case that he was a bonafide refugee. There is no Affidavit-in-opposition in the instant Rule from the said Respondents wherein the allegations of the petitioner that he produced all relevant registers and documents in support of his case that he was a bonafide refugee. The Rule, however, should be disposed of entirely on the ground that the petitioner was not evicted from the said land in due course of law. Admittedly, the petitioner is in possession of the said land on payment of seasonal rent to the State Government and so long the petitioner is not evicted in due course of law the State Government cannot settle the said lands to any other person. Accordingly, the purported settlement made in favour of the Respondents No.7 and 8 must be cancelled. The Rules is, therefore, made absolute. Liberty is however given to the State Government to take appropriate steps in accordance with law for the eviction of the petitioner if such eviction is called for in view of the facts and circumstances stated hereinbefore. The Rule is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. The question as to whether the petitioner is a bonfide refugee or not is kept open.