RK Manisana, J-This writ appeal arises from the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge made on 18.2.93 in Civil Rule No. 1912 of 1992 2. Facts giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are as follows. In Civil Rule No. 1912 of 1992, the writ petitioners challenged the proceedings in Encroachment Case No. 2 of 1991 pending before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) Tinsukia. The case of the writ petitioners is that on 30.11.77 they received notice from the Additional Deputy Commissioner Dibrugarh asking them to give possession of the land in question to the respondents 6 to 8 (appellants herein). They submitted objection but the same was rejected. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh, again issued notice on 17.7.78 asking the writ petitioners to vacate the land without asking them to give possession to the respondents 6 to 8. The writ petitioners submitted objection stating that they have been occupying the land as tenants of the owners, namely the appellants herein and, therefore, the Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to evict them by exercising powers under the Revenue Law. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the objection by holding that the Government acquired the land in 1943 for Army but in the year 1973 the Army had re-conveyed the same to the original owners and, therefore, eviction was necessary for giving the vacant possession back to the owners. Thereafter, there was litigation between the parties in the civil Court in respect of land and respective rights of the parties. 3. A reading of the judgments of the Munsiff (1) Tinsukia in TS No 111 of 1978, the Assistant District Judge in Title Appeal No. 77 of 1986 and this Court in SA No. 67 of 1988 between the parties in respect of land in question makes it clear that the land was originally belonged to a private owner and the Government acquired the land for the purpose of Army some­time in the year 1943, but the Central Government re-conveyed the land sometime in the year 1976; and that the claim of the writ petitioners that they have been in possession of the land since 1947 as tenants of the private owners has been decided against them, that is to say, they have been occupying the land as encroachers. 4. 4. The question which arises for consideration is, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the Deputy Commissioner or the Additional Deputy Commissioner has jurisdiction to initiate proceedings to evict the writ petitioners under Rule 18 (1) of the Settlement Rules. Rule 18 (1) of the Settlement Rules runs : ''Subject as hereinafter provided, the Deputy Commissioner may eject any person from land over which no person has acquired the rights of a proprietor, land holder, or settlement holder." In view of Rule 18 (1), the land from which a person may be evicted or ejected must be one over which no person has acquired rights of proprietor land-holder, or settlement-holder. 5. The next question which, therefore, arises is whether the appellants have acquired the right of proprietor, land-holder, or settlement-holder, by virtue of the deed of re-conveyance. The meaning of the word 'proprietor' is defined in section 3 (f) of the Regulation to mean owner of any estate permanently settled or entered on the Deputy Commissioner's register of revenue-free estates. Under section 3 (g) of the Regulation, 'land-holder' means any person deemed to have acquired the status of a land-holder under section 8. Section 3 (h) of the Regulation fines 'settlement-holder' to mean any person, other than a proprietor, who has entered into an engagement with the Government to pay land revenue, and includes a land-holder. The petitioner-respondents rely only on the deed of re-conveyance and contend that the appellants have acquired the right of proprietor, land-holder or settlement-holder in terms of the re-conveyance. But the deed of re-con­veyance does not indicate that the possession of the land has been delivered to the appellant by the Army authority. The order of the Deputy Commissioner rejecting the objection of the petitioner-respondents says that the possession of the land has not yet been made over to the appellants. Documents on the record of Encroachment Case No 2 of 1991 show that the land in question is recorded as the Central Government land in the Revenue records. Under the deed of re-conveyance the title of the land might have been divested from the Central Government to the appellants but the appellants must hold the land under the State Government and acquire the right of proprietor or land-holder or settlement-holder, as the case may be. Under the deed of re-conveyance the title of the land might have been divested from the Central Government to the appellants but the appellants must hold the land under the State Government and acquire the right of proprietor or land-holder or settlement-holder, as the case may be. But there is no material on record at this stage to show that the appellants have acquired the right of proprietor or land-holder or settlement-holder, as the case may be, under the State Government. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Deputy Commissioner has jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Rule 18 (1) of the Settlement Rules. We are further of the view that due process includes proceedings under Rule 18. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.