S. Haque, J.-The petitioner and the respondents are same in these 7 Civil Rules and the subject matter assailed is simlirar. So, these 7 writ petitions are considered and heard analogously for disposal by this common judgment. 2. The petitioner has assailed the notice dated 19.3.1982 issued by the Bakijai Officer, Kamrup, Gauhati in seven (7) Bakijai Cases No. 1,2, 3,4, 5, 6, and 7 of 1982 (Land Revenue) under section 7 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act which were served on the petitioner on 15.5.1982 with copy of certificate demanding Land Revenue of Rs. 1,835-68, Rs. 1,160-85, Rs. 310-22, Rs. 1,623-21, Rs. 3,862-72, Rs. 8,729-69 and Rs. 4,049-16 respectively for the lands of the villages Lomati, Barkhat, Siylekhati, Dhangiri-Damarapathar, Dhangiri-Mairakuchi-Digarupar, Kurkuria-Batakuchi and Karchia of Mouza Panbari and Sonapur, District Kamrup. The petitioner has also assailed the notice dated 18.6.1982 given in each case by the Certificate Officer, Gauhati under Rule 77 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act. 3. Admitted position was that the land in question belong to the petitioner and during the relevant period the lands, were requisitioned under the provisions of the Assam Requisition and Acquisition Act, 1948 and the Defence of India Act, 1962 and were under the possession of the Military Department (Defence). 4. The contentions in the writ petition are that the land reve­nue for the lands of the petitioner shown above was payable to the Government and in default thereof was realisable under Chapter V of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, and that the provisions of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act are not applicable for realisation of any arrear of land revenue in respect of the estates held by the petitioner in those villages; and that the Bakijai and Certificate Officer, Gauhati had acted illegally and without jurisdiction in issuing the impugned notices under section 7 and under Rule 77 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act and Rules and the proceedings in the seven (7) Bakijai cases are void, illegal and without jurisdiction. The petitioner has prayed for qua­shing the proceedings of the Bakijai cases. 5. The respondents (1) Bakijai and Certificate Officer, Kamrup, Gauhati, (2) The Collector of Kamrup, Gauhati and (3) The State of Assam had not contested by filing any affidavit-in-opposition in any of these cases controverting the contentions and allegations of the petitioner. Learned Government Advocate Mr. The petitioner has prayed for qua­shing the proceedings of the Bakijai cases. 5. The respondents (1) Bakijai and Certificate Officer, Kamrup, Gauhati, (2) The Collector of Kamrup, Gauhati and (3) The State of Assam had not contested by filing any affidavit-in-opposition in any of these cases controverting the contentions and allegations of the petitioner. Learned Government Advocate Mr. H. N. Sarma has ver­bally argued at the hearing. 6. Mr. P.K. Baruah for the petitioner submits that the proceed­ings in the Bakijai cases are illegal because the provisions of Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act are not applicable for recovery of arrear revenue in Assam and that the provisions of Chapter V of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation are only applicable for recovery of arrear land revenue. Mr. H. N. Sarma could not satisfy us as to how the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act can be made applicable for this purpose. 7. The Assam Land and Revenue Regulation is self contained Code and land revenue or arrear of land revenue in respect of any estate is payable and recoverable only in accordance with the prov­isions of the Regulation in any area where the Regulation is in force and applicable. By virtue of the Regulation and under section 2 thereof the provisions of recovery of public demand, so far as it relates to recovery of arrears of land revenue were repealed. The revenue in respect of estates held by the petitioner in the aforesaid villages of Panbari and Sonapur Mouja of Kamrup District was payable and arrears thereof were realisable only in accordance with the provisions of Chapter V of the Regulation. The provisions of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act are not applicable for realisation of any arrear of land revenue in respect of the estates of the petitioner in the villages aforesaid. 8. Section 63 of the Regulation prescribes that the land revenue payable in respect of any estate shall be due jointly and severally from all persons who had been in possession of the estate or any part of it during any portion of the agricultural year in respect of which that revenue is payable. Under the provision of section 68 of the Regulation, the prescribed officer is required to issue a notice of demand to pay the arrears of land revenue within a prescribed time in the notice. Under the provision of section 68 of the Regulation, the prescribed officer is required to issue a notice of demand to pay the arrears of land revenue within a prescribed time in the notice. Under section 69 (1) of the Regulation, the Deputy Commissioner may, for the recovery of an arrear, order for attachment and sale of so much of a defaulter's moveable property as will, as nearly as may be, defray the arrear. The Deputy Commissi­oner can also attach a defaulting estate under section 69 A of the Regulation. If in the opinion of the Deputy Commissioner the process provide for in section 69 is not sufficient for the recovery of the arrear, he may, sell the estate by auction as provided by the provision of section 70 of the Regulation. The Assam Land and Revenue Regulation is a self contained Code and the land revenue or arrear of land revenue in respect of any estate is payable and recoverable only in accordance with the provision of Chapter V of the Regulation for any estate where the Regulation is in force. The provisions of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act is donot applicable for realisation of any arrear of land revenue in respect of the estates where the Regulation is in force and applicable. 9. All proceedings in the seven (7) Bakijai Cases aforesaid and the notice under section 7 of the said Act along with the certificate of demand and also the notice under Rule 77 were void, illegal and without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. We accordingly quashed these in respect of all the seven (7) Bakijai Cases. 10. The writ petitions in all the seven (7) cases are allowed and the Rule in each of these cases is made absolute. We make no order as to costs.' 11. Send down the records. H.K.Sema, J. - I agree.