This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 13.10.92 passed by the Assam Board of Revenue. 2. Petitioner claims that being a landless person he possessed, as far back as 1955, the land in question measuring 6 Bigha 15 Lechas covered by Dag No. 562 of Annual Touzi Patta No. 88 of Chaboti Village under Nakari Mouza, North Lakhimpur. He claims that after clearing jungle and making it fit for habitation and cultivation he stayed on the said land by constructing dwelling houses and growing crops on the land. Further contention of the petitioner is that petitioner used to pay revenue and Annual Touzi Patta No. 88 was issued to him. A part of the land was once encroached and occu­pied by Military Engineering Service(MES)in the year 1983 but the same was vacated and returned to the petitioner in the year Iy91. Petitioner submitted applications in Form B to the Deputy Commissioner on several occasions for settlement of the said land with him which has not been disposed of yet. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur issued the impugned notice of eviction on 18.12.91 under Rule 18 (3) of the Settlement Rules of Assam .and Revenue Regulations, 1886 in Encroachment Case No. 4/91-92 asking the petitioner to remove the house and the standing crops etc. at once from the land and to inform the office in writing on 6.1.92 and appear personally on that day. Against this petitioner moved before the Revenue Minister by an application dated 27.12.91 bringing to his notice the order of eviction dated 18.12.91 and also prayed for issue of annual patta. The Revenue Minister on the same date directed the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur by a note on the body of the application to consider the application for settlement. But in spite of this order of the Revenue Minister, it is alleged, no action has been taken by the Deputy Commissioner. On 6.1.92, the date fixed for appearance, the petitioner appeared before the Additional Deputy Commissioner and filed application for adjournment to file his written statement. Accordingly 13.3.92 had been fixed. Again petitioner moved the Revenue Minister on 10.3.92 for staying the eviction, in pursuance to the notice dated 18.12.91 and the Revenue Minister directed the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur to stay the eviction order and consider the eviction as prayed by the petitioner. Accordingly 13.3.92 had been fixed. Again petitioner moved the Revenue Minister on 10.3.92 for staying the eviction, in pursuance to the notice dated 18.12.91 and the Revenue Minister directed the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur to stay the eviction order and consider the eviction as prayed by the petitioner. On 13.3.92 as the petitioner's lawyer could not appear petitioner filed an application for further time to file written statement which has been rejected by the Deputy Commissioner informing him that the eviction had already been executed Allegation is made that the petitioner was confined to the Court on that day and the execution of the eviction was made. Immediately petitioner approa­ched the Additional Deputy Commissioner and sought permission to examine the records and the same was refused. Against this petitioner preferred appeal before the Board of Revenue and by order dated 13.10.92 the Board of Revenue rejected the appeal of the petitioner. 3. By order dated 4.] 1.92 in the writ petition, Rule was issued and the impugned order of the Board of Revenue was stayed. 4. Heard Mr. U. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. KP Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 who was impleaded after filing of the writ petition. None appeared for the Government and no affidavit has been filed. Respondent No. 5 by its Sectary Mrs. Parul Phukan filed affidavit-in-opposition countering the case of the petitioner. The averment made in the affidavit-in-opposition is that the land in question has been allotted to the Women Industrial Training Institute (ITI) at Chaboti on the basis of the proposal for establishment of the ITI with financial assistance of the World Bank under the supervision of the Government of Assam and the disputed land including an area of 20 Bigha 1 Katha 15 Lechas of Govt. land covered by Dag No. 561, 562 and 618 was allotted to the said institution by the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur and the same was approved by the Land Advisory Committee and the possession of the said land was delivered to the Superintendent, Industrial Training Institute, Dhemaji on 25.9.91. The subject matter of the dispute is DagNo.562 which includes 6 Bigha 15 Lechas of land and there is no dispute in respect of rest of the land. 5. Mr. The subject matter of the dispute is DagNo.562 which includes 6 Bigha 15 Lechas of land and there is no dispute in respect of rest of the land. 5. Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner at the beginning raised the point that the eviction notice itself is not sustainable on the ground that the notice was issued under Rule 18 (3) of the Settlement Rules which require 15 days notice for eviction and this statutory provision has not been complied with by the respondents. From the impugned notice of eviction dated 18.12.91 (Annexure A to the writ petition) it appears that direction was given to the petitioner to remove his house, crops etc standing on the land described in the schedule at once (underline supplied) on receipt of the notice and report the office in writing personally on 6.1.92 - otherwise he would be forcibly evicted in accordance with law. As stated above by order dated 13.3.92 (Annexure H to the writ petition) the Additional Deputy Commissioner held that the land had already been allotted in favour of the Women Technical Training Institute and the land has been handed over to the Public Works Department and it is further held that the encroachers are systematically encroaching the land. From Annexure B to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 5 it appears that the entire land measuring 20 Bigha 15 Lechas was occupied by MES and on 25.9.91 the MES handed over possession of the land to Government and after such handing over the land was allotted to the Women ITI, that schedule of this document shows that land handed over by MES to the Government was in three dags, namely Dag Nos. 561, 562 and 618 and that entire dags has been allotted to Women Technical Training Institute and the dispute has arisen only in Dag No. 562. Further barbed wire fencing was raised around the entire area together with boundary pillars with a fund of Rs. 87 lakhs provided by the Director, Employment and Craftsman Training, Assam. Keeping in view this aspect I hold that the notice has to be served under Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules but misquotation of the rule cannot be a bar to evict the petitioner under Rule 18 (2) of the Settlement Rules. Therefore that notice cannot be vitiated by misquoting the sub-rule (2) of Rules 18. Keeping in view this aspect I hold that the notice has to be served under Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules but misquotation of the rule cannot be a bar to evict the petitioner under Rule 18 (2) of the Settlement Rules. Therefore that notice cannot be vitiated by misquoting the sub-rule (2) of Rules 18. The next question comes for decision is whether the petitioner is an encroacher of Government reserve land. The notes of the concerned Deputy Commissioner has been annexed in the writ petition being Annexure G. The learned Board of Revenue while considering the case of the petitioner perused the comments of the Deputy Commissioner and allowed the report produced and rejected the appeal. From Annexure G to the writ petition it appears that the petitioner occupied 6 Bigha 15 Lechas of land in Dag No, 562 which has been kept reserved in the name of Kalyan Kendra and the land covered by Dag No. 88 is not Touzibahi land. The Touzibahi land of other dags were cancelled during the year 1983 fur non possession of the appellant, that further the petitioner could not produce the Touzibahi land revenue receipt on the land in question. In his writ petition in paragraph 8 the petitioner contended that his house has been gutted by fire in the year 1970 and in the said fire all the belongings including the documents regarding revenue matters were completely burnt. This point has been made for the first time before this Court only and apparently to correct the lacuna of the appeal before the Board where the respondent Collector established from record that the petitioner could not produce even Touzibahi revenue receipt for the land in question. Regarding possession of the land, declaring the petitioner as encroacher, is the finding of facts which has been decided by the Deputy Commissioner and this fact has been concurred by the Board of Revenue and under the writ jurisdiction this Court cannot interfere with such finding. In AIR 1984 SC 898 (Bishnu Ram Borah & another vs. Parag Saikia & others) the Apex Court held that the High Court is not entitled to enter into the question of facts. The Apex Court further held that. In AIR 1984 SC 898 (Bishnu Ram Borah & another vs. Parag Saikia & others) the Apex Court held that the High Court is not entitled to enter into the question of facts. The Apex Court further held that. "It was imper­missible for the High Court to have embarked upon an inquiry into the facts to adjudge the suitability or otherwise of the rival pairs of claimants and upon a reapprisal of the evidence come to a finding contrary to that reached by the Board of Revenue." In M Venugopal vs. Divisional Manager, LICI, Machilipatnam ( AIR 1994 SC 1343 ) the Apex Court held that "unless it is found that some relevant evidence has not been considered or that certain inadmissible materials has been taken into consideration, the concurrent find­ing of facts cannot be disturbed by us in this appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution." There was nothing on record to show that the Board had acted in excess of jurisdiction or there was an error apparent on the face of the record which resulted in manifest injustice. Fro n the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am of the view that the facts on the basis of which the petitioner was found an encroacher cannot be interfered with and the Deputy Commissioner has acted under his jurisdiction to arrive at the decision. Being a writ Court, which is sitting to review the judgment of the Board of Revenue, this Court is not willing to interfere with the decision of the Court below. This writ Court is of view that all relevant admissible materials have been consi­dered by the Board. 6. Another allegation of the writ petitioner is that in spite of the order of the Revenue Minister of the very date the eviction proceeding was executed, that by the notice for eviction, as discussed above, petitioner was directed to remove his house, crops etc standing on the land at once. As the petitioner failed to comply with the order the eviction has been executed. As it appears, the petitioner has already been evicted and this Court cannot restore the eviction at this stage, more so, when the land has already been handed over to a public institution on 25.9.91 on which date the land was handed over to the Government by MES. As it appears, the petitioner has already been evicted and this Court cannot restore the eviction at this stage, more so, when the land has already been handed over to a public institution on 25.9.91 on which date the land was handed over to the Government by MES. Further notes of the Revenue Minister, on the body of the application (annexed to the writ petition) shows that concerned autho­rity was directed to consider the claim of the petitioner. That cannot be treated as order of stay as not specific separate order was passed by the Minister on the basis of the application as the Rules of Administrative work requires separate specific order in such cases. 7. Admittedly on the day of eviction or prior to that petitioner was not a settlement holder and though petitioner claims that his application for settle­ment is pending and no action has been taken on that day the petitioner was an encroacher in the eye of law. Petitioner also failed to produce any Touzibahi revenue receipt and the documents which has been produced were not related to the land in dispute. These are the facts found on enquiry by the concerned authority. As submitted by the learned counsel for respondent No. 5 with the help of the stay order of this Court the petitioner again constructed his dwelling houses over the disputed land and this cannot give him a right for restoration of the land to him. Petitioner was found to be an encroacher and therefore this Court is not inclined to restore his possession over the land. However, the concerned authority can consider his settlement and dispose of his application for settlement within three (3) months from receipt of this order. But it is made clear that no application for settlement shall be consi­dered by the authority concerned regarding the land in dispute. 8. In the result the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.