S.N.Phukan, J- By this common judgment and order we propose to dispose of two writ petitions registered as Civil Rule Nos. 724 of 1981 and 147 of 1984 as the points involve are common and both the cases were heard analogously. 2. The writ petitioners are two companies owning tea gardens. The dispute in Civil Rule No. 724 of 1981 is in respect of ceiling surplus land of Bokel Tea Estate owned by the company and in other Civil Rule the dispute is also in connection with ceiling surplus land of Bazaloni Tea Estate. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Dibrugarh in respective ceiling cases determined an area of 2604. 19 acres as surplus land in respect of Bokel Tea Estate and an area of 7680 Bighas O Kathas 16 Lechas as excess land in respect of Bazaloni Tea Estate under the provisions of Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. 1956, for short, 'the Act'. The review petition before the State Government was also rejected. Thereafter by letter dated 27th October, 1977 (Aunexure-1 to the petition) the Revenue Department, Government of Assam, directed the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh to select, 'a suitable compact block of 600 acres for settlement with the Mothola Tea Estate so as to facilitate the rehabilitation of the large body of displaced working labourers of the said Tea Estate'. This area was to be selected from the ceiling surplus land of Bokel Tea Estate, The land in dispute was accordingly selected and settled with Mothola Tea Estate and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are the owners of the said Tea Estate. In respect of Bazaloni Tea Estate by letter dated 28.12.83 the Government allotted 40 acres of land out of the ceiling surplus land of the said Tea Estate to Mothola Tea Estate. Being aggrieved the above two writ petitions have been filed. 3. One counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the official respondents by the Additional Deputy Commissioner in Civil Rule No. 147 of 1984 wherein it has been stated that Government felt seriously concerned about rehabilitation of 600 six hundred) labourers and other workers of M/s Mothola Tea Estate which was 'virtually eaten up by the severe erosion of river Brahmaputra' and accordingly the settlement was done to save the workers from throwing out of employment. It has also been stated that as the land was lying fallow it did not cause any inconvenience to the writ petitioners, It has been pleaded that under the provisions of the Act Government has exclusive right to dispose of the ceiling surplus land. In the counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the Mothola Tea Estate in this Civil Rule the allegation of the petitioner that the petitioner was compelled to surrender the excess land has been denied and it has been reiterated that considerable areas of Mothola Tea Estate which was originally located in the outskirts of Dibrugarh town was eroded by the river Brahmaputra and the owner of Tea Estate faced the grim prospect of complete closure and the unpleasant task of retre­nchment of huge labour force. According to the respondents the writ petitioners ceased to have any right, title and interest over the excess land which was voluntarily surrendered and as such cannot raise and question of hardship and loss on account of allotment of the land to a third party. In respect of the writ petitioners that allotment of land to Bazaloni Tea Estate fir establishing a new Tea Es ate within the Tea Estate of the writ petitioners would cause serious law and order problem have been denied and it has been stated that in Tea Estates owned by different individuals and companies are always contiguous to each other. 4. In Civil Rule No. 724 of 1981 a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of all the official respondents by the Under Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department and the same stand has been taken, namely the ceiling surplus lands are at the disposal of the Government, for settlement and the outgoing owner has no option in the matter of such disposal. The private respondent, namely the owner of Mothola Tea Estate have al-o taken the same stand as in the other Civil Rule and have further stated that the settlement was done with the Tea Estate in accordance with the provisions of the Act. According to the said respondent the original area of land of Mot­hola Tea Estate was about 1200 acres and the total labour strength was 600 and not 200 as alleged by the petitioners. According to the said respondent the original area of land of Mot­hola Tea Estate was about 1200 acres and the total labour strength was 600 and not 200 as alleged by the petitioners. According to the respondents the settlement of the land was done for rehabilitation of 600 labourers otherwise they would have been thrown out of employ­ment and as such it was in the public interest. The allegations of the petitioners have also been denied that the land ought to have been acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and that for taking the surplus land of the petitioners and settling it with the respondents the petitioners have suffered loss amounting to Rs. 3000/- to 4000/- per Bigha. According to private respondents they have invested huge amount of money for the purposes of establishing tea garden. 5. The Act was not applicable initially to lauds held and utilised for special cultivation of tea and purposes ancillary thereto. Subse­quently, by amendment in the year 1971 land held for special cultivation was also brought within the purview of the Act. Sub-section (2) of section 4 provides for the procedure for determining excess land under the Act for special cultivation of tea. It may be stated that for allotment of land for special cultivation there is a procedure laid down in the Settlement Rules frame 1 under the Assam Land and Revenue Regula­tion, 1886 vide Section II of the said Rules. The land for such special cultivation of tea was settled under different terms from time to time and for the present purpose we need not go into the history of such allotment. 6. Sub-section (4) of section 7 of the Act inter alia provides that after the final statement is prepared under the said section all rights, title and interest of the person or persons whose lands are shown as excess in such statement shall stand transferred to and vest in the State Gover­nment free from all encumbrances and no person shall then be entitled to question it in any Court. Chapter III lays down the procedure for disposal of excess land determined under the Act and vested in the State Govern­ment under the above sub-section (4) of section 7. Chapter III lays down the procedure for disposal of excess land determined under the Act and vested in the State Govern­ment under the above sub-section (4) of section 7. Section 16 of the Act under the above Chapter III inter alia provides that if there is any cultivating tenant in occupation of the land acquired, he shall be given settlement of such land on the conditions laid down in the said section. Section 17 lays down the manner of disposal of land which is not settled under section 16. The said section 17is quoted below: "17. Manner of disposal of land which ii not settled under section 16-(!) The State Government or any officer empowered by it in this behalf shall be entitled to settle any land which has not been disposed of under section 16 in the same manner as any other land which is at the disposal of the Government under section 12 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. (2) The State Government or the officer empowered in this behalf may, for the purpose of settling any land under sub-section (1) above, eject, if necessary, any person in unauthorised possession. (3) In making settlement under sub-section (1) of this section preference shall be given as far as practicable to the following categories of persons in the order of narration stated below j (a) Landless cultivator who has been rendered homeless due to flood, erosion or earthquake. (b) Landless cultivator. (c) Agricultural Farming Corporation as defined in the Assam Agricultural Farming Corporation Act, 1973 (Assam Act VIII of 1973). Explanation......" 7. We may state here that section 12 of the Act lays down the principles of compensation for acquiring excess land. Such amount of compensation in case of fallow land shall be 25 times the full rate of annual land-revenue payable for such land and in case of other land, inclusive of the value of trees shall be an amount equal to 50 times of such annual revenue. A separate procedure has been laid down for acquiring such land in occupation of a tenant which is not relevant for our present purpose. Thus it is clear that for acquiring the land the owner shall not be entitled to get the market value of the land. 8. The main contention of Mr. A separate procedure has been laid down for acquiring such land in occupation of a tenant which is not relevant for our present purpose. Thus it is clear that for acquiring the land the owner shall not be entitled to get the market value of the land. 8. The main contention of Mr. N.M.Lahiri, learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the purpose of the Act is for agrarian reforms and as it is covered by Article 3) A and Band as this Act has- been included in Schedule IX to the Constitution the settlement of the excess land, taken over from the petitioners with respondent Nos. 4 and 5 for the purpose of establishing another tea garden is violative of the provisions contained in sections 16 and 17 of the Act. Mr. D.N.Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the other petitioner has also adopted the argument advanced by Mr. N.M.Lahiri and has further urged that the settlement to the private respondents is in complete disregard to the scheme of the Act, more "particularly section 4 which provides for the ceiling limit of land that an individual company etc. can hold. Mr. Baruah has further urged that under the Act ceiling surplus land has 'first to be offered to the tenants if there be any, there­after it has to b: settled in accordance with the provisions of section 17 of the Act. According to Mr. Baruah by the present settlement the Government has allowed another tea garden to be started within the gardens of the petitioners which is not permissible. Mr.J.P.Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the private respondents has contended that as the land has vested in the State Government the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the subsequent settlement. According to Mr. Bhattacharjee after the settlement respondents were also given periodic patta by the State and this has not been challenged in the present writ petition?. According to the learned counsel the words 'as far as practicable' appearing in sub-section (3) of section 17 is only advisory and it governs person and not the surplus land. Reliance has been placed in a decision of the Apex Court in N. K. Chauhan vs. State of Gujrat, AIR 1977 SC 251 , mire particularly paras 26 and 27. According to the learned counsel the words 'as far as practicable' appearing in sub-section (3) of section 17 is only advisory and it governs person and not the surplus land. Reliance has been placed in a decision of the Apex Court in N. K. Chauhan vs. State of Gujrat, AIR 1977 SC 251 , mire particularly paras 26 and 27. In this case the words "as far as practicable* or like expression was considered by their Lordships This was in connection with reservation of posts. According to their Lordships this expressions 'as for as practicable' would mean that State must make a serious effort to fulfil the mandate of the legislature and if it becomes non-feasible and impracticable the Government would be free to fill up the vacancies otherwise. 9. Mr. P.O. Baruah, learned Advocate General appearing for the State has urged that keeping in view the provisions of sections 15 and 17 of the Act ceiling surplus land can be disposed of by the State in the manner prescribed in section 12 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation. The said section I/ of the Regulation empowers the State Government to make rules for disposal by way of grant, base or otherwise over which no person has acquired any right as a proprietor, landholder or settlement holder. 10. In our considered view sections 15, 16 and 17 of the Act and also section 12 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation have to be read together to give effect to the intention of the legislature expressed in the Act. The legislation fixing ceiling limit on land was enacted keeping in view public demand and excess land so acquired was to be settled with landless persons including tenants. After the ceiling limit is determi­ned and ceiling surplus land is transferred to and vested in the Govern­ment, if there is any cultivating tenant in occupation of the land ho shall have the first right of settlement, but such settlement shall not exceed the ceiling limit fixed under section 4 of the Act. The tenant has to pay the amount to the Government as provided in the said section. If there is any sub-tenant in occupation he has also a right of settlement as provided in subjection (3) of section 16. The tenant has to pay the amount to the Government as provided in the said section. If there is any sub-tenant in occupation he has also a right of settlement as provided in subjection (3) of section 16. The ceiling surplus land not settled under section 16, has to be settled as provided under section 17 of the Act and in making such settlement the settling authority has to follow the guideline given in sub-section (3) of section 17. The said sub­section (3) inter alia provides that preference in settlement shall be given as far as practicable first to the landless cultivator rendered homeless due to flood, erosion or earthquake, secondly to landless cultivator and third to Agricultural Farming Corporation as defined in the Assam Agricultural Farming Corporation Act, 1973. 11. Though Mr. Bhattacharjee has urged that the words "as far as practicable" occuring in section are not mandatory and only guideline but in our opinion an attempt shall have to be made to give settlement to the categories of persons mentioned in the section 17. In the present cases we do not find from the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the State that any such attempt was made to find out whether there were classes of persons mentioned in the said sub-section (3) for settlement. We, therefore, do not find any force in the submission of learned counsel. 12. From the affidavit filed on behalf of the State we find that only stand taken is the as the ceiling surplus land vested in the Government, it is free to settle the land to any person as per section 12 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. We are unable to accept the contention of the State as if such a view is taken the whole purpose of the Act would be frustrated. By settling ceiling surplus land in complete disregard to the guideline given by the legislature in the present petitions, the State Government has given a go by to the intention of the legislature. We may note here that in Sonapur Tea Co. By settling ceiling surplus land in complete disregard to the guideline given by the legislature in the present petitions, the State Government has given a go by to the intention of the legislature. We may note here that in Sonapur Tea Co. Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner, AIR 1962 SC 137 the Apex Court held that this Act is constitutionally valid and further that the Act conforms-to the pattern usually followed by the several States in the country for giving effect to agrarian reform and the attack against its validity on the ground that it is a colourable piece of legislation was rejected. 13. Regarding the point of locus standi of the present petitioners as urged by Mr. Bhattacharjee we may say that the orthodox view of locus standi has undergone considerable change in our jurisprudence and we have accepted public interest litigation by giving a complete burial of the above orthodox view of locus standi That apart, by acquiring the land of the petitioners under the Act and settling it with the private respondents for starting a new industry, namely the Tea Estate the petitioners have been deprived of their valuable right of getting adequate compensation for the land. Therefore, the petitioners have definitely got locus standi. 14. Mr. Bhattacharjee has urged that though the petitioners have challenged the initial settlement order they have not challenged the periodic patta given to the respondents and as such in the present petitions the petitioners cannot get any relief. We are unable to accept the view of Mr. Bhattacharjee inasmuch as the periodic patta was subsequently given as a result of the initial settlement order which has been challenged in the present petitions. 15. Another contention of Mr. Bhattacharjee is that even settlement of land for tea garden would be also an agrarian reform. This, in our view, is not at all acceptable as otherwise legislature would not have fixed ceiling limit for special cultivation of tea by introducing the amendment in the year 1971. 16. According to Mr. Bhaitacharjee the private respondents have started the tea garden by investing huge sum of money and it would be inequitable to set aside the settlement order. Learned counsel further urged that there was no failure of justice as the petitioners were paid compensation and that apart, they have got huge area under tea cultiva­tion. 16. According to Mr. Bhaitacharjee the private respondents have started the tea garden by investing huge sum of money and it would be inequitable to set aside the settlement order. Learned counsel further urged that there was no failure of justice as the petitioners were paid compensation and that apart, they have got huge area under tea cultiva­tion. Learned counsel has urged that under Article 226 of the Consti­tution the High Court does not grant writ as a matter of course and it may refuse if it is satisfied that there was no failure of justice. In this connection learned counsel has drawn our attention to a decision of the Apex Court in A.M. Allison vs. B.L. Sen, AIR 1957 SC 227 . On this legal proposition there is no dispute. But as stated earlier by taking away land of the petitioners without paying adequate compensation we ate of the opinion that there was failure of justice. 17. Situated thus, we hold that settlement of the land to the private respondents for starting a tea garden and constructing of labour quarters etc. was in complete violation to the provisions of the Act. So the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 18. There is no dispute that by investing huge sum of money the private respondents have started the the garden and in our opinion it would not be just and proper to throw out the private respondents from the land. There is no dispute in the legal proposition the at writ Court can m mid its relief according to the facts and circumstances of the case. Considering the facts stated above we are of the opinion that if adequate compensation is paid to the petitioners it would meet the ends of justice. 19. As the lands of the petitioners were taken without authority of law they shall be entitled to get compensation. Writ Court cannot fix the value of the land and accordingly we direct the Deputy Commissioner cum-Collector, Dibrugarh to assess the value of the land taken away from the petitioners and settled with the respondents within a period of 6 months from receipt of this order. In doing sO, the Deputy Commissi­oner shall take into consideration the amount claimed in the present petition. In doing sO, the Deputy Commissi­oner shall take into consideration the amount claimed in the present petition. lo the event the value fixed by the Deputy Commissioner is not acceptable to the petitioners, the Deputy Commissioner may try to settle the matter through arbitration, failing which the petitioners may approach the appropriate civil Court. Petitioners may, however accepts the price assessed by the Deputy Commissioner under protest and it will not prejudice their case. With the above directions both the petitions are disposed of. No costs.