Lahiri, J.- The petitioners are human "shuttlecocks". They belong to "Garo Scheduled tribes". They lived merrily. Came the partition of India and they had to pay dearly. They had to flee from their 'home sweet home', their 'native' land overnight became a 'foreign country'. We won our freedom, self government and the shackles of slavery were broken. We gained, profitted, thrived and prospered but millions of Indians left out in the partitioned India lost everything, life, home, liberty and even human dignity. We shed tears for the refugees of the world but totally, completely and conveniently let slip from the memory the plights, agonies, miseries and sufferances of our Indian Refugees. The petitions belong to that wretched class of people. They came for safety, shelter-they were termed as 'refugees' but in reality they continue to remain as 'the refuse'in our Democratic Socialist India, that is, Bharat. They somehow could reach .'Assam. The Government of the country accepted them, as Justice-social and economic and assurances of the dignity to the indivi­dual are imprinted in our "Constitution". They were accepted by the Government of Assam and allotted lands at Kharikona. They came in a batch consisting of 500 families. As it happens more often than not the allotments of lands are made at places which are most unsuitable. The petitioners are cultivators but the land allotted was not arable, farmable or ploughable. Naturally, they migrated and infiltrated into a nearby Forest Reserve styled as "Luthumari". But the Government considered it unsafe to keep them in that forest and asked them whether they would accept resettlement in "Rongkhong Reserve Forest". The Govern­ment was up and doing and the hapless families agreed to accept whatsosver was offered to them, as they had not even "a straw to catch hold". The promise of the Government finds expression in Annexure 'A' where their leader Sashi Sangma was asked whether those 500 Garo families would accept allotment of lands in "Rongkhong Reserve". It was in 1959. Thereafter, the picture emerges in Annexure 'B'. We find, vide Government order No. FOR/SETT/427/57/161 dated 13.1.60 and Conservator of Forest order No. FG. 40(4) dated 23.2.69, 120 families had been accommodated in Rongkhong Reserve Forest after allotting plots to them. It appears clear from Annexure 'B' that on allotment of plots, 120 families were allowed to live in a portion of "Rongkhong Reserve". We find, vide Government order No. FOR/SETT/427/57/161 dated 13.1.60 and Conservator of Forest order No. FG. 40(4) dated 23.2.69, 120 families had been accommodated in Rongkhong Reserve Forest after allotting plots to them. It appears clear from Annexure 'B' that on allotment of plots, 120 families were allowed to live in a portion of "Rongkhong Reserve". The Government, it appears, were anxious to stabilise and settle more families in the Reserve. It appears from Anntxure 'B' that 200 plots of land were demar­cated and earmarked for another 200 families. Annexure 'B' clearly indicates that 120 families had been settled in that area and that the Forest Department, as far back in 1969, took all possible steps to settle another 200 families in 200 plots. All arrangements for their rehabilitation were made and even the forest officials were considering the case of settlement of further 180 families. However, we do not find anything in Annexure 'B', as to what happened with those 180 families. We also do not find the precise area that had been allotted to each family for their residential-cum-agricultural purposes. However, those records are surely with the Government and with the slightest effort the authorities could have found out the records referred in Annexure 'A' and 'B'. There is no doubt that settlement of most of these 500 families had been done in that area. Unfor­tunately, nothing has been produced before us to show the precise area allotted to those who were settled with lands. Further it does not appsar at all from the records placed at our disposal whether out of those 500 families any family was deprived of the right of allotment. Similarly, we also do not have the list of the allottees and/or Registers of the allottees before us. We also do not find the exact area allotted to each family and/or the members of the households. We also do not find whether there was any notification declaring the area as a forest village. When the allotments were made in the manner disclosed in Annexure 'A' and 'B', the crucial question arises as to whether, by virtue of the allotments or settlements made with the petitioners, the reserved area became automatically dereserved. It appears, therefore, in the present case, after the settlements were made the area in which the allotments or settlements were made no longer remained a part of the Reserved Forest. It appears, therefore, in the present case, after the settlements were made the area in which the allotments or settlements were made no longer remained a part of the Reserved Forest. A thin endeavour has been made before us to show that the allottees were Taungya villagers. However, there is no document produced before us that there was any such agreement between the Govern­ment on the one side and the petitioners on the other, to show that they were accepted as Taungya villagers or which is called as "Jhumias" under the Rules for the Establishment and Control of Forest villages, made under Section 72 of the Assam Forest Regu­lation, 1891, for short "The Regulation". There is no notification to show that the area in which the allotment had been made was declared to be a forest village. It follows, tberefoe, that it was a direct settlement by the government to the petitioners and they are not forest villagers as contemplated under the Rules for The Establishment and Control of Forest Villages, framed by the government vide notification No. 4631R dated 6th December, 1980, under sections 72(e), 74 and 75 of "the Regulation". One thing is for sure that Taungya villagers have no right of residence in the forest village. We mean to say that 'jhumias'are admitted in a forest reserve on condition that they would do certain acts as provided in Rule 12 of the "Rules". The jhumias are to execute agreement in the form prescribed by the government in letter No. FOR 1367/5276-G. J. dated 27/10/41. 2. Who are those allottees ? What is their status? The peti­tioners were all agriculturists. So, they were given settlement in the deep "Reserved Forest" for carrying on their avocations and agri­culture is their sole occupation. They have categorically stated that they were settled in that area and have no paper, apart from Annexure 'B' to support their rights. It is admitted by the respondents in the notices as well as in their affidavits that allotments had been made in favour of the petitioners except the petitioners in Civil Rule Nos. 600 to 614, 652 to 654, 657, 659, 660, 662 to 664, 666, 667, 723 to 727, 729, to 738, 740, 766, 772 to 774, 776 to 779, 783 to 789 of 1982. 600 to 614, 652 to 654, 657, 659, 660, 662 to 664, 666, 667, 723 to 727, 729, to 738, 740, 766, 772 to 774, 776 to 779, 783 to 789 of 1982. Therefore, even the respondents ad­mitted that the petitioners, barring those 40 petitioners referred above, were allotted land as Taungya Villagers. However, we do not find any record to show that there was any such agreement with them. On establishment of a forest village, for the purpose of providing a source of suitable local labour or for farming and maintaining plantation, Taungyas are allowed to enter in Forest Villages by the Conservator of Forest. Taungyas are not allottees of land in the forest village. At best, they can be local labour force who live outside the villages and their help and recources are taken to mantain plantations in the Reserved Forest : licences or permits are granted by the Divisional Forest Officer to the entrants in accordance with the executive order of the Conservator of Forest. An allottee cannot be styled as Taungya. Taungyas or Jhumias are granted licences; ordinarily they live near the forest. If there was no forest village the ques­tion of Taungya agreement cannot arise in these cases. If it was declared to be a forest village the register or document or papers must be there to show the persons allowed to live in the village, in the Forest Department and/or with the Government. In the instant cases, the petitioners state clearly and specifically that they were allottees. The respondents have also admitted in the notices as well as in the affidavits that allotments of the land were made to them. Under the circumstances it is very difficult for us to accept that the petitioners were merely mem­bers of the labour force allowed to work for the plantations and/or for the purpose referred in Rule 2 of "the Rules". Fur­ther there is no record to show what was the area of land actually allotted to them. Under these circumstances the petitioners cannot be branded as trespassers and evicted. The peti­tioners had applied for appropriate relief to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the High Court accepted their applications in Civil Rule No. 499 of 1974 and the connected Civil Rules in Harendra Chiran & Ors. vs. Divisional Forest Officer, West Division, Mikir Hills Dist. & Ors. The peti­tioners had applied for appropriate relief to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the High Court accepted their applications in Civil Rule No. 499 of 1974 and the connected Civil Rules in Harendra Chiran & Ors. vs. Divisional Forest Officer, West Division, Mikir Hills Dist. & Ors. disposed on 5.1.1981, when there were attempts to evict them. It is true that in the said petitions, some of the petitioners claimed that they were allottees and a few claimed that they were occupying the land under Taungya system, however, their case was that they were occupying the land. The common case of the petitioners was that they were not unauthorised occupiers liable to be evicted under section 72 (c) of "the Regulation" and the rules framed thereunder. The petitioners claimed that they had the right to occupy and cultivate the land which the respondents had allotted and settled with them, for household and cultivation. The peti­tioners contended that they were not given any opportunity to show cause that they were not unauthorised occupiers. It appears from the decisions that the Respondents could not produce any document to show that they were not allottees. It was at the instance of counsel for the Respondents the matter was remitted back to the Divisional Forest Officer, Mikir Hills District West Division, Diphu to go into the entire matter and to decide whether the petitioners were unauthorised occupiers or not and specific directions were given to the Divisional Forest Officer to find out the records which show the names of the allottees and the area of lands allotted to each of them. The Court also directed that in the notices of eviction specific and clear areas should be described in respect of which the petitioners were unauthorised occupiers, the Divisional Forest Officer was directed to call for the relevant records and on perusal of the records to decide (i) who were allotted settlement of lands; (ii) what was the precise area of land allotted to each allottee. It was, inter-alia, ordered that- "the petitioners shall appear before the D.F.O., Mikir Hills District, West Division, Diphu within 45 days, there­after they shall be served with show cause notice specifying the area and boundaries of land under their so-called illegal occupation". 3. It was, inter-alia, ordered that- "the petitioners shall appear before the D.F.O., Mikir Hills District, West Division, Diphu within 45 days, there­after they shall be served with show cause notice specifying the area and boundaries of land under their so-called illegal occupation". 3. However, in none of the impugned notices the D.F.O. has specified the precise area and boundaries of the lands alle-gadly in unauthorised occupation of the petitioners. Therefore, on this point alone the matter must be remitted back to the Divisional Forest Officer to comply with the terms of the order of this Court in Civil Rule No. 499 of 1974 decided on 5.LSL 4. During the course of hearing it transpired that these are not simple cases in which the respondents or any one of them can evict the petitioners at their sweet will, without the authority of law. There must be some provision of law on the basis of which the respondents can take action against the petitioners. We are of the opinion that before taking any such action, the following relevant questions shall have to be resolved by the Respondents : (i) How many Garo families were settled or allotted lands in the "Reserved Forest" ? (ii) Whether the settlement was in respect of homestead or agricultural land ? It appears to us that the settlement was made for rehabilitating the petitioners or some of them by allotting homestead as well as agricultural land. (iii) The respondents must ascertain the exact area all­otted to those families for homestead and/or for agricul­tural purposes, with exact boundary thereof. (iv) The respondents are to consider as to whether the settlement or allotment of the lands in Rongkhong Reserve Forest amounted to deservation of the reserved area by 'virtue of "the act of the State". If so, the respondents shall have to take actions in accordance with the provisions of law relevant to such land. (v) the respondents are to find out whether the petiti­oners or some of them have encroached beyond the land which had been allotted to them. If so, what was the exact area encroached upon. Without ascertaining the area which had been allotted to the petitioners and/or some of them it would be difficult for the respondents to serve notices or claim that the petitioners are encroachers and/or in unauthorised occupation of land. If so, what was the exact area encroached upon. Without ascertaining the area which had been allotted to the petitioners and/or some of them it would be difficult for the respondents to serve notices or claim that the petitioners are encroachers and/or in unauthorised occupation of land. While serving notices under the relevant provisions of the Regulation and/or the Rules the respondents must quote the provision of the Regulation and/or the Rules and must specify the exact area in unauthorised occupation of the petitioners and/or some of the petitioners. (vi) The respodents are to find out whether the petitioners were really Taungya villagers or jhumias and whether there was any such agreement between such persons and the Government and/or the Forest Department. (vii) If some of the petitioners are found to be Taungya villagers the notices must clearly show the conditions which had been violated by them and they must be shown or furnished with the copy of the Taungya agreement, if there, be any. 5. In respect of the forty petitioners noted above the Res­pondents claimed that they were not allottees which those petiti­oners contest. The respondents have miserably failed to produce before us the list of the allottees maintained by the Government of Assam and/or by any of the respondents. Therefore, the respon dents must first of, all check up the list of the allottees in the Register or any other records at the disposal of the Respondents and thereafter if their names do not appear in the Registers or records the Respondents might hold them to be non-allottees otherwise not. Further, we would observe that those petitioners were threatened with eviction for violation the provisions of S. 24 of the Regulation. For violating the provisions of S. 24 a person is punishable by an appropriate court of law but he cannot be forcibly evicted from the land, atleast there is nothing in the Forest Regulation to that effect. 6. In the interest of justice to which the ignorant petitioners are entitled it would be the prime obligation or rather the consti­tutional obligation of the respondents to trace out all the con­nected records and then to decide who are the real allottees and who are not. Thereafter, the Respondent should proceed to take action against thoes who have encroached upon land beyond the areas allotted to them. Thereafter, the Respondent should proceed to take action against thoes who have encroached upon land beyond the areas allotted to them. While remitting the cases to the D.F.O. we would observe that the petitioners should not be allowed to destory or damage the forest products. The authorities should be extremely vigilant to protect and safeguard the Forest and wild life. With these observations we quash the impugned notices as the respondents could not establish that the petitioners were trespassers and/or unauthorised occupier of any land - the Respondents have failed to produce any document to that effect. We make it very clear that neither the State nor its executive officer can interfere with the rights of others unless they ''could point out some specific rule of law to justify their acts. In the instant cases there is no material to bear up the cases of the respondents nor could they point out any provision of law to order eviction of the petitioners. In our opinion the actions taken in these cases by the respondents were destructive of the basic principles of "the rule of law". Mrs. Meera Sarma, learned counsel appear­ing on behalf of the District Council submits that a direction may be given for early enquiry and disposal of these cases so that 'the Reserve Forest' may be free from encroaehers. We appreciate the contention and accordingly we direct the respondents to dispose of the cases of the petitioners at the earliest possible opportunity and if on due and proper enquiry they find that any of the petitioners as encroacher or unauthorised occupier they should serve notice in due compliance with the directions made in this judgment. 7. In the result, the petitions are allowed. However, we make no orders as to costs although the petitioners are poor, as Mrs. Sarma, learned counsel for the District Council has rightly submitted that the subject matter is forest produce and the respon­dents have acted to uphold the provisions of Act. 48 (A) of the Constitution of India.