D.N. Baruah,J-These two writ petitions challenge the orders passed by the Commissioner of Lower Assam Division setting aside the settlement of land, culminating in grant of periodic patta in exercise of powers under Rule 26 of the Rules framed under Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, 2. Petitioners urged before a Division Bench of this Court that once a periodic patta is issued in pursuance of an order of settlement, power under Rule 26 cannot be exercised. In support of the contention reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Sona Mura vs. Charthey Teron, AIR 1951 Assam 41, and a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in State of Assam vs. Saifat Ali, AIR 1967 Assam & Nagaland 3. The contesting respondents, on the other hand canvassed the correctness of the decisions. Both these Civil Rules have been referred to Full Bench on account of importance of the question involved. 3. The facts of both Civil Rules are similar. These may be stated as follows : On 22.2.58, Sub Divisional Officer, Barpeta, settled 18 bighas of land in favour of late Damabrudhar Deka, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners in Civil Rule No. 1117 of 1986 and 18 bighas of land in favour of Jibon Chandra Deka, petitioner in Civil Rule No. 1204 of 1986 and 5 bighas of hind in favour of Kantiram Deka. Annexure I is the order of settlement. After the order of settlement, annual pattas ware issued in their favour. Possession of land had also been delivered to them. After getting possession, petitioners improved the land and made it fit for 'Bow' (a type of paddy) cultivation and converted a part of land into fishery, Thereafter, they prayed for conversion of annual patta to periodic putta. Prayer for conversion was allowed and the petitioners as well as Kantiram Deka were directed to pay premium for conversion. Accordingly, premia for conversion were paid. After conversion of annual patta into a periodic patta, some time in 1961 the records of rights were corrected. Thereafter they invested more money for further improvement of the land settled with them. In 1964 the Sub Divisional Officer, Barpeta issued notice to the petitioners and Kantiram Deka to show cause as to why the land should not be made 'sarkari'. On receipt of the notice, the petitioners showed cause by filing obje­ctions. Thereafter they invested more money for further improvement of the land settled with them. In 1964 the Sub Divisional Officer, Barpeta issued notice to the petitioners and Kantiram Deka to show cause as to why the land should not be made 'sarkari'. On receipt of the notice, the petitioners showed cause by filing obje­ctions. In spite of their objections, the Sub Divisional Officer recommended to the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup cancellation of the periodic patta already issued to the petitioners and Kantiram Deka and also for making the land Village Grazing Reserve. This was done without giving any opportunity of hearing. This was, according to the petitioners, done at the instance of some villagers of Jalkhana. The petitioners having failed to get relief, filed representation before the Commissioner, lower Assam Division, Guwahati, stating the facts and praying inter alia not to cancel the periodic patta already issued to them. The Commissioner, Lower Assam Division looked into the matter and considered the legality of the proposed cancellation of the periodic patta and conversion of the land into a VGR and was satisfied that no VGR should be constituted in a patta land as proposed by the Deputy Commissioner, inasmuch as, it would not be in conformity with Rules 25 and 26 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation. Accordingly, the Commissioner, Lower Assam Division, refused to convert the said patta land belonging to the petitioners to a VGR. Subsequently, some interested persons, namely, villagers of Jalkhana, continued to pursue the matter. The Commissioner of Lower Assam Division again took up the matter for consideration. On coming to know about this, the petitioners an 1 other pattadars filed petitions before the Commissioner stating the facts. The Commissioner, Lower Assam Division by order dated 21.11.83 by Annexure 6 in Civil Rule No.1117 of 1186 and Annexure 7 in Civil Rule No 1204 of 1986cancelled the pattas given to the petitioners. The petitioners Said appeal before the State Government against this order. The State Government stayed further proceeding regarding conversion of patia land into VGR. But no order was passed on the appeal. The petitioners were waiting to get information about the date of hearing; without fixing a date for hearing by WT Message dated 27.2.86 (Annexurs 10 in Civil) Rule No. 1117 of 1986 and Annexure 9 in Civil No. 1204 of 1986) the stay order was vacated by the State Government. But no order was passed on the appeal. The petitioners were waiting to get information about the date of hearing; without fixing a date for hearing by WT Message dated 27.2.86 (Annexurs 10 in Civil) Rule No. 1117 of 1986 and Annexure 9 in Civil No. 1204 of 1986) the stay order was vacated by the State Government. In spile of their best efforts petitioners failed to obtain information about the appeal. Therefore, they Sled a writ petition before this Court (Civil Rule No.442 of 1986) against the order vacating stay. This Court after hearing the parties, by order dated 5.5.86 disposed of the petition with direction to the petitioners to approach the State Government and direction to the State Government to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioners within a period of three months. In pursuance of the order, the petitioners filed appeal before the Minister (Revenue). The appeal was heard on 25.7.86 by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue Department (S) and was dismissed by order dated 1.9.86 (Annexure 12 in Civil Rule No. 1117 of 1986 and Annexure 10 in Civil Rule No. 1204 of 1986) 4. According to the petitioners, the conversion of annual patta into a periodic patta was in accordance with Regulations and the Rules made there­under and the Commissioner had no jurisdiction and authority to cancel the patta once issued in purported exercise of the power under Rule 26 of the Regulations. According to the petitioners, there was no illegality or irregularity in giving settlement of land. 5. Point arising in the reference is whether the decisions of this Court reported in Sona Mara vs. Charthey Teron, AIR 1951 Assam 41 and in State of Assam vs. Saifat Ali & others, AIR 1967 Assam & Nagaland 3 are correct or not. 6. In Sona Mura vs. Charthey Teron, AIR 1951 Assam 41, a learned Single Judge of this Court held that Revenue Authorities under the Regulations has no power to cancel a periodic patta even in case of fraud and the aggrieved parties may approach the civil Court for adjudication of their respective rights. 7. In State of Assam vs. Saifat AH, AIR 1967 Assam & Nagaland 3, a Division Bench of this Court also held that once a patta kas been issued it can be cancelled only for violation of the terms embodied in the patta. 7. In State of Assam vs. Saifat AH, AIR 1967 Assam & Nagaland 3, a Division Bench of this Court also held that once a patta kas been issued it can be cancelled only for violation of the terms embodied in the patta. It further held that power exercised by the Commissioner under Rule 26 is neither appellate nor revisional power but only an administrative power. While the Commissioner hasj urisdktion to confirm or cancel a settlement, he cannot cancel a periodic patta issued in pursuance of the order of settlement. 8. Under Rule 26 of the Settlement Rules, the Commissioner has power to confirm all settlements and also to cancel any settlement made in contra­vention of the Rules. We quote the Rule : "Subject to the general control of the State Government, the Commissi­oner shall have power to confirm all settlements, and also to cancel any settlement made in contravention of these rules, after giving the lease­holder an opportunity of being heard." On reading of the above Rule, it appears that the Commissioner has been vested with power to confirm all settlements and also to cancel any settlement. Rule 26 does not speak of any patta. It is, therefore, necessary to see whether the power extends to cancellation of a patta. 9. The Division Bench has inferred these two Civil Rules as it doubted the correctness of the two reported decision;;. However, at the time of hearing of these Civil Rules, the counsel for the parties submitted that besides answer­ing the reference, we should also dispose of these Civil Rules on merit. Accor­dingly, we proceed to answer the reference and to dispose the Civil Rules on merit. 10. Gajendra Nath Deka filed an application to implead himself in a representative capacity on behalf of the villagers of Jalkhana. The Court impleaded him as respondent No. 6 in Civil Rule No. 1204 of 1986 and respondent No.7 in Civil Rule No. 1117 of 1986. 11. Mr. NM Lahiri, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the petitio­ners, Mr. DN Choudhury appeared on behalf of newly added respondent, Gajendra Nath Dcka and Mr. DP Chaliha, learned Government Advocate appeared on behalf of other respondents. 12. The contention of Mr. Lahiri is that patta once issued by the com­petent authority cannot be cancelled by the Revenue Authorities. He further submitted that order of settlement and granting of patta are two different things. DP Chaliha, learned Government Advocate appeared on behalf of other respondents. 12. The contention of Mr. Lahiri is that patta once issued by the com­petent authority cannot be cancelled by the Revenue Authorities. He further submitted that order of settlement and granting of patta are two different things. A settlement order, if it is found to be illegal or not in accordance with Rules can be set aside or cancelled. But patta cannot be cancelled. If a patta is issued for a term of more than 10 years, pattadar acquires the status of landholder as defined in section 3 (g) of the Regulations. His interest created by the patta is permanent, transferable and heritable. Mr. Lahiri further submitted that this Court in the two reported decisions has laid down the correct proposition of law and, therefore, cancellation orders passed by the Commissioner and affirmed by the State Government are liable to be quashed, Mr. Lahiri also submitted that this position of law has been followed for more than 50 years and has withstood the test of time. On the other hand, Mr. DN Choudhury submitted that patta is found to be illegal or not in accordance with law or contrary to the instructions of the Government is liable to be cancelled and the Revenue Authority has the power to cancel the patta. Mr. DP Chaliha also supported the impugned orders. 13. Under the Regulations 'Proprietor' means the owner of any estate permanently settled or entered on the Deputy Commissioner's register of revenue free estates 'Land holder' means any person deemed to have acquired the status of a land holder under sections. 'Settlement-holder' means any person, other than a proprietor, who has entered into an engagement with the Government to pay land revenue and includes a land holder. Under section 8 any person who has before or after commencement of the Regulations acquired any such land under the lease granted by or on behalf of the Government, the term of which is not less than ten years shall be deemed to have acquired status of land holder in respect of the land. Thus if any patta is issued either Before or after the commencement of the Regulations, for a period not less than ten years, he shall acquire the status of land holder. Thus if any patta is issued either Before or after the commencement of the Regulations, for a period not less than ten years, he shall acquire the status of land holder. Under section 9, a land holder shall have a permanent, heritable and transferable right of use and occupancy in his land, subject to certain conditions mentioned in section 9 (a) (b) and (c). Such rights are subject to conditions of any engagement which the land holder may enter into with the Government. Chapter III of the Regulations deals with settlement operation. As per section 17, settlement operation may consist of one or more of the following : (a) survey and demarcation, (b) assessment of land revenue of the land, and (c) record of rights. Under section 18, when any lo al area or class of estates is to be settled, the State Government may issue a notification of settlement defining the local area or class of estate to be settled specifying the settlement operation to be carried out. The settlement operation shall continue until the issue of another notification declaring the operation to be closed. Section 29 empowers the State Government to make Rules. 14 The Settlement Rules have been framed under the Regulations. Rule 2 (c) defines 'Annual lease' as a lease granted for one year only. It confers no right in the soil beyond a right of user for the year for which it is given. It confers no right of inheritance beyond the year of issue. It confers no right of transfer or of sub-letting and snail be liable to cancellation on account of any transfer or sub-letting even during the year of issue. 'A Periodic Lease' means a lease grated for more than one year and in the case of town land a lease for a period longer than three years. Subject to any restrictions, conditions and limitations contained therein, a periodic lease, the term of which is not less than ten years, conveys to the lessee the right of a land-holder. Rule 2 (f) defines 'Settlement'. It means leasing of land at the disposal of the Government and includes the operations of survey, classifi­cation and report, preliminary to such leasing. 'Waste land' has been defined in Rule 2 (b). Rule 2 (f) defines 'Settlement'. It means leasing of land at the disposal of the Government and includes the operations of survey, classifi­cation and report, preliminary to such leasing. 'Waste land' has been defined in Rule 2 (b). It means land at the disposal of the Government, which the Government has not disposed of by lease, grant or otherwise and which is not included in a forest reserve, or in a forest proposed to be reserved under section 5 of the Assam Forest Regulation, VII of 1991, or in a protected forest constituted under the Rules made under the said Regulation, and I as not been allotted as a grazing ground under Rules framed under section 13 of the Revenue Regulation. An annual lease can be converted into a periodic lease. Rule 13 provides the procedure. Under the said Rule, the Deputy Commissioner or other Officer specially empowered in this behalf may convert an annual lease into a periodic lease in accordance with such instructions as may be issued from time to time for his guidance by the State Government. On conversion of annual lease into a periodic lease, the lease-holder is liable to pay premium at rate fixed by the State Government. However, in case of land other than agricul­tural land, conversion would be allowed only with prior approval of the State Government and subject to payment premium as indicated in Rule 13 (A). In granting periodic lease, for ordinary cultivation or in converting annual leases into periodic leases for ordinary cultivation, under Rule 14, the Deputy Commissioner shall so fix the period as to expire concurrently with the general settlement of the district or of the local area of the class of estates to which the land belongs. Normally, during the settlement operation, the Settlement Officer may settle any land after settlement, patta is issued, and the term of period of patta expires with the expiry of the terra of settlement. However, after the closure of the settlement, land capable of giving settlement may be settled by the Deputy Commissioner and in that case the lease will be only for a period ending with the expiry of the settlement in that locality. From a reading of Rule 14 it is abundantly clear that the settlement may be given at the time of settlement operation and also after closure of the settlement. From a reading of Rule 14 it is abundantly clear that the settlement may be given at the time of settlement operation and also after closure of the settlement. The term of patta will coincide with the period of settlement in the said locality. 15. The State Government has issued various instructions regarding settlement etc. The Assam Land Records Manual contains such instructions. Under Instruction No. 105, no periodic patta should be proposed or ordered to be issued unless formal applications have been made and premium for conversion of annual lease to periodic lease has been paid in one or more instalments at the rate fixed by the State Government. AH applications for conversion should be enquired into and disposed of, as early as possible. The conditions necessary for issuance of periodic patta are that the land should be demarcated and actually surveyed and must be actually cultivated with some permanent crop, such as, transplanted rice or permanent broadcast winter rice or permanent rice seedlings or permanent cold weather crops etc Besides, no periodic patta can be issued or proposed to be issued if there exists any dispute over the possession or over prima facie title of the land in question. The instruction has the support of Rule 19 of the Rules. After passing the settlement order, the Deputy Commissioner shall issue patta in Form No. 2 of Assam Land Revenue Manual for the purpose of ordinary cultivation. The patta mentions the period of lease. Such patta shall indicate the conditions. In clause 9 of Form No. 2, it is specifically mentioned that if the pattadar infringes any of the conditions the patta is liable to be cancelled. 16. As per Rule 26, the Commissioner shall have power to confirm settle­ment or cancel a settlement made in contravention of Rules. 'Settlement' as denned under Rule2 (f)means leasing of land. It also includes the earlier stages leading to such leasing, such as, operation of survey, classification report, preliminary to such leasing. Lease may be annual or periodic. Therefore, the settlement not only includes the earlier stages leading to grant of patta but also the grant of patta. Therefore, the Commissioner has been empowered under the said Rule 26 to either confirm or cancel any settlement including the grant of patta if it was made or issued in contravention of the Rules. Lease may be annual or periodic. Therefore, the settlement not only includes the earlier stages leading to grant of patta but also the grant of patta. Therefore, the Commissioner has been empowered under the said Rule 26 to either confirm or cancel any settlement including the grant of patta if it was made or issued in contravention of the Rules. If we look into the definition of 'periodic lease' as referred to Rule 2 (d), it appears that the periodic lease issued by the competent authority is always subject to conditions, restrictions and limitations contained in the periodico lease. A mere glance at Form No. 2, Periodic Khiraj lease for ordinary culti­vation, makes it clear that the Deputy Commissioner can grant lease subject to the provisions of the Regulations and the Rules made thereunder from time to time. Besides, such lease also depends on the fulfilment of the conditions contained in the lease. Clause 9 of the lease clearly indicates that in case of any infringement of the conditions mentioned in the lease, the lease is liable to be cancelled. If the authority gives settlement and grants lease for a period not less than ten years, the lease holder acquires status of land holder and such pattadar/lease-holder shall have permanent, heritable and transferable right over land on conditions that may be entered into with the Government. This is clearly indicated in section 9 of the Regulations. Besides, Chapter III of the Regulations refers to settlement and resumption. 17. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the periodic patta once granted can be cancelled only on default of land revenue and that the Revenue Authority has no power to cancel a periodic patta on appro­priate grounds. At least various provisions contained in the Regulations do not support any such view. In Soon Mura TS. Charthey Teron (supra), Deputy Commissioner cancelled a periodic patta which had been issued to the appellant and ordered a fresh patta for the entire area to be issued in favour of the respondent. This Court held that the Deputy Tom-mifsioner had no jurisdiction to cancel a patta which was once granted to a person cxcent for default of payment of land revenue. This proposition shall apply if the patta was issued legally in accordance with law as provided under the Rules. This Court held that the Deputy Tom-mifsioner had no jurisdiction to cancel a patta which was once granted to a person cxcent for default of payment of land revenue. This proposition shall apply if the patta was issued legally in accordance with law as provided under the Rules. Form a reading of the judgment it appears that issue of periodic patta was absolutely in accordance with law. Besides, in that case, the power of the Deputy Commissioner under Rule 26 was not considered. 18. In State of Assam TS. Saifat Ali (supra), the Division Bench of this Court also held that the power conferred on the Commissioner under Rule 26 is neither appellate nor revisional, but is only administrative power, that it only gives him jurisdiction to confirm or to cancel settlement but not to cancel periodic patta issued in pursuance of the order of settlemtnt and that once patta has been issued it can only be cancelled for violation of the terms embodied in the patta. As indicated already. Rule 26 empowers the Com­missioner to confirm all settlements and to cancel any settlement made in contravention of the Rules. Therefore, it cannot be said that the patta once granted can be cancelled only on violation of terms and conditions embodied in the patta. If it is found that the settlement given by the authority concerned is in contravention of the Rules, the patta can be cancelled. In this case this Court observed thus : ''It is also clear from the foot-note that the jurisdiction of the Commissioner is only in the cases where there has been an obvious contravention of the Rules. If there is no dispute with regard to the violation or otherwise of the Rules, Rule 26 does not authorise the Commissioner to cancel the patta in his administrative capacity." Therefore, the decision in this case is founded on the foot-note to Rule 26 In otherwords, if there has been violation of ,he Rules while granting or issuing periodic patta, the Commissioner has jurisdiction to exercise his power under Rule 26. We respectfully agree with the decision. We respectfully agree with the decision. For confirming or cancelling a settlement the Commissioner has to apply his mind and look into the provisions contained in the Regulations and the Rules framed there­under and ii the Commissioner is satisfied that the settlement was given in contravention of the Rules he can cancel it only after giving an opportunity of hearing to the person concerned. We, however, do not express our opinion as to whether the power under Rule 26 is administrative or quasi-judicial. We hold that a patta issued by the competent authority in contravention of Rules ready under the Regulations can be cancelled at any time even if the patta-holder may have a heritable and transferable right over the land. 19. Turning to the merits, Mr. Lahiri submitted that the settlement was given as far back as in 1958, thereafter conversion was allowed and the petitioners accordingly paid conversion premium, that the authorities remai­ned in deep slumber for more than 20 years and thereafter the show cause notice was issued. During this period many changes must have happened on the land. As stated by the petitioners, they made improvement of the land for making the land fit for 'bow' cultivation and also converted a part of land into fishery. After 20 years the Commissioner cancelled the patta issued and converted the land to a Village Grazing Land. The main thrust of argument of Mr. Lahiri is that the cancellation was not at all called for and no valid reason, whatsoever, was given by the Commissioner for cancellation except the statement that the order granting settlement was not in accordance with Rules. The Commissioner has not explained how the settlement given by the authorities concerned was not in accordance with Rules. He further sub­mitted that the conversion of the land to a VGR vas far oblique purpose. Therefore, such order cannot be sustained. On the other hand, Mr. DN Cboudhury submitted that the settlement was given la complete violation of the provisions of the Regulations and Rul is made thereunder. Under Rule 13 of the Settlement Rules, the Deputy Commissioner or any other officer empowered in this behalf may convert an annual lease into a periodic lease only in accordance with the instructions that may be issued from time to time. Under Rule 13 of the Settlement Rules, the Deputy Commissioner or any other officer empowered in this behalf may convert an annual lease into a periodic lease only in accordance with the instructions that may be issued from time to time. Instruction No. 105 (2) (b) of the Assam Land Records Manual states that for converting an annual to a periodic lease, the authorities must be satisfied that the land was actually cultivated with some permanent crop. Mr. Choudhury further submits that admittedly the land was a swampy land and not fit for any cultivation and therefore, grant of patta was in complete violation of Instruction 105 of the Assam Land Records Manual. Therefore, it is said, the Commissioner rightly cancelled the patta and no interference is called for. 20. The Commissioner in the impugned order dated 21.11.83 (Annexure 6 in Civil Rule No. 1117 of 1986 and Annexure 7 in Civil Rule No. 1204 of 1986) held that the Government as far back in 1966 had reports that the settlements were irregular, inasmuch us, petition from local public for constitution of VGR was pending at that time as apparent from Government letter dated 14.5.66 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup and this letter was based on a report from the Settlement Officer, Kamrup. Subsequent to the said letter dated 14.5.66 local Land Settlement Advisory Committee in its meeting resolved to constitute VGR on the land under question. The Commissioner called for a detailed report from the Deputy Commissioner. The report of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup was forwarded by letter dated 8.4.82. The report contained findings based on record, namely; that the grant of annual patta and subsequent conversion to a periodic patta were malafide and the land was lying fallow at the time of settlement as it was swampy and covered with water hyacinth. There was a public petition for converting the land VGR, when the settlement was given. The land was being used by the villagers for grazing cattle when is was free from flood. Considering all these aspects the Commissioner held that the land was never fit for cultivation and was never used by any individual and if not converted to VGR it would affect the villagers' source of livelihood. The Commissioner took the view that cancellation of pattas would be for good of the greater number of people and accordingly he cancelled the pattas. 21. The Commissioner took the view that cancellation of pattas would be for good of the greater number of people and accordingly he cancelled the pattas. 21. The appellate orders dated 1.9.86 (Annexure 12 to Civil Rule No. 1117 of 1986 and Annexure 10 to Civil Rule No. 1204 of 1986) however arc cryptic orders. The appeal was dismissed by merely saying that the periodic pattas issued to the petitioners were irregular and therefore, there was no valid ground for restoring the periodic pattas. 22. The Sub Divisional Officer, Barpeta, vide his letter dated 21.2.70 informed the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Gauhati, that the land was a part of 137 bighas 2 kathas 19 lechas proposed for constitution of VGR at Kashkuripam. There was a public demand from the neighbouring villagers for constitution of VGR since 1956 as will be apparent from the correspondence between the Deputy Commissioner and the Settlement Officer. However, 56 bighas of land was settled with the petitioners and others by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Barpeta and thereafter the land was conver­ted into periodic patta by the Settlement Officer, Kamrup, in spite of the objections from the villagers. In view of the above, according to the Sub Divisional Officer, settlement of the aforesaid land to the petitioners and others and conversion thereof were irregular. The Commissioner, Low«r Assam Division called for a detailed report. The Extra Assistant Commissio­ner and Land Acquisition Officer submitted a report. From the report appears that the land was swampy and under water hyacinth till the date when Extra Assistant Commissioner made the enquiry. During his visit he did not find and crop on the land. He came to know that the land was lying fallow since the time of settlement and, therefore, it was not fit for conver­sion even for temporary crops. He also found two tanks used as fisheries. He further gathered from the local people that though pattadars claimed possession over these two tanks, actually the tanks had been used by the villagers before the land was settled with the pattadars. The people of the locality used to fish in the said tank* for community feast etc. The report further says that there was claim and counter-claim regarding the possession of the land. In these circumstances, according to the Extra Assistant Commissioner the land ought not have been settled. The people of the locality used to fish in the said tank* for community feast etc. The report further says that there was claim and counter-claim regarding the possession of the land. In these circumstances, according to the Extra Assistant Commissioner the land ought not have been settled. The Extra Assistant Commissioner further stated in his report that the conversion of annual patta into periodic patta was illegal and contrary to the provisions of Instruction No. 105 (2) (b) of the Land Record Manual. Evan in the remark column of 'chitha' the land was shown as 'Gagsli Beel'. It was a beel (collection of water) at one time, however, with the deposit of silt it became shallow and fit for grazing ground for three or four months a year. 23. From the above it appears that at the time of giving settlement there was dispute regarding possession. The land was swampy and covered with water hyacinth. It was not fit for cultivation. In view of the above, the settlement given by Assistant Settlement Officer and the subsequent conversion of annual patta into into periodic patta by Settlement Officer was contrary to the Government Instruction No. 105 contained in Land Record Manual. Therefore, grant of patta was a clear violation of Rule 13 of Regulation. 24. Last submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Commissioner ought not to have cancelled the pattas issued in favour of the petitioners after lapse of more than twenty years, even if the Commissioner has such power under Rule 26 of the Regulations. Rule 26 does not prescribe any period of limitation for exercise of power. However, that does not mean that the Authority may cancel the periodic patta at any time. This will depend on the faets and circumstamces of each case. In the instant case, we find from the record that proposal for constitution of VGR was there at the time of conversion of annual patta into periodic patta. The Sub Divisional Officer, Barpeta wrote a letter dated 19.12.66 to the Deputy Commissioner, Kammp regarding constitution of VGR. In the said letter, the Sub Divisional Officer informed that a report was sent to the Deputy Commissioner vide letter dated 29.11.62, wherein he intimated that pattas granted by the Settlement Officer in spite of objection from the villagers may b; cancelled, if there would be no difficulty. In the said letter, the Sub Divisional Officer informed that a report was sent to the Deputy Commissioner vide letter dated 29.11.62, wherein he intimated that pattas granted by the Settlement Officer in spite of objection from the villagers may b; cancelled, if there would be no difficulty. Therefore, the matter regarding constitution of VGR w is pending since then. In view of the above, it cannot be said that cancellation of pattas in exercise of Rule 26 of the Regulations was made after inordinate delay. Hence, we do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 25. We have already held that patta can be cancelled on the ground of violation of Rules made under the Regulations or for contravention of the terms and conditions embodied in the patta. The Commissioner's conclusion that pattas were granted contrary to Rules is supported by adequate material Accordingly, we dismiss the Civil Rules. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.