JUDGMENT P.G. Agarwal, J. 1. The subject matter of the present writ petition has a chequered history. The Petitioner before us is a Company registered under the Companies Act wherein the Govt. of Assam is also alleged to have some shares. In the year 1961, the Govt. of Assam granted a settlement for a plot of land, to the Petitioner-company, which is situated at Kalapahar covered by Dag No. 813(Ta) of Natun Town, Ulubari Mouza. It was originally reserved for village grazing ground but subsequently the land was deserved. The Petitioner-company has made constructions over the said land. There is a path connecting the land of the Petitioner-company with the AK Azad Road and the said road is being used by the employees and officers of the company. Just in between the land of the Petitioner-company and the AK Azad Road there is a vacant plot of land. The Petitioner-company had approached the concerned authority for settlement/extension etc. of the said vacant plot of land but the prayer was rejected. However, on 20.5.94, the State Govt. settled one bigha of land covered by Dag No. 360 in favour of the Respondent No. 3 Sri A.K. Das and the said settlement in favour of A.K. Das is the subject matter of the present writ petition. 2. The Petitioner-company had approached this Court earlier in Civil Rule No. 1596 of 1994 and the Petitioner-company was directed to file representation before the State Govt. Accordingly a representation was filed and vide order, dated 8.1.2001, the said representation was dismissed/rejected. The Petitioner-company in this writ petition has challenged the said settlement in favour of the Respondent A.K. Das and has prayed for quashing of the same. The Respondent A.K. Das has filed an affidavit-in-opposition challenging the locus of the Petitioner-company in the matter of Govt. land and also denied the other allegations. The Respondent GMDA has also filed an affidavit-in-opposition. 3. We have heard Mr. P.C. Deka, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the writ Petitioner, Mr. C.K.S. Baruah, learned Senior Advocate for the Respondent No. 3, learned Govt. Advocate and Mr. N. Singh, learned Counsel for the GMDA. 4. The settlement has been challenged on the following grounds: Ground No. 1 The settlement of the land in favour of Respondent No. 3 has blocked the approach road, which was used by the company and its employees for more than 35 years. Advocate and Mr. N. Singh, learned Counsel for the GMDA. 4. The settlement has been challenged on the following grounds: Ground No. 1 The settlement of the land in favour of Respondent No. 3 has blocked the approach road, which was used by the company and its employees for more than 35 years. It is further stated that there is no other road for entrance or any other ingress and egress to the factory and the laboratory of the company. 5. The above allegation has been denied by the Respondent and the relevant photographs and trace maps etc. have been produced. 6. We have perused the same and find absolutely no basis for the above allegation. The path connecting the factory of the Petitioner company with the AK Azad Road is in no way disturbed. 7. The learned senior Counsel for the Respondent Mr. C.K. Sarma Baruah has submitted that the path is not included in the settlement made in favour of the Respondent No. 3 and the use of the path will not be disturbed in any manner by the Respondent No. 3. Ground No. 2 It is submitted that Respondent No. 3 is the own brother of Sri C.K. Das, IAS who was the Deputy Commissioner of Kamrup, Guwahati on earlier occasion and he was the Secretary, Revenue, Govt. of Assam. It is alleged that the settlement has been given at the instance of said Sri C.K. Das. 8. We have perused the records and find absolutely no material in support of the above allegation. Sri C.K. Das was not the Deputy Commissioner when the recommendation was made from the office of the Deputy Commissioner and as a matter of fact during the entire process of allotment and settlement made in favour of the Respondent No. 3, Sri C.K. Das was not holding the office of the Deputy Commissioner. 9. Mr. C.K. Sarma Baruah, learned senior Counsel on the other hand has submitted that as per the direction of this Court a representation was required to be heard by the Secretary, Revenue, Govt. of Assam and at the relevant time Sri C.K. Das was the Secretary, Revenue and hence the State came up with an application before this Court for allowing another official to dispose of the representation as per direction of this Court and accordingly another officer of the Govt. of Assam disposed of the representation. of Assam and at the relevant time Sri C.K. Das was the Secretary, Revenue and hence the State came up with an application before this Court for allowing another official to dispose of the representation as per direction of this Court and accordingly another officer of the Govt. of Assam disposed of the representation. Merely because the brother of Respondent No. 3 happens to be a Govt. official, the settlement cannot be termed bad on that count, unless it can be shown mat the said Govt. official was in any way involved and he has used his office for the purpose of obtaining concessions in favour of his brother or relation. In the present case, there is absolutely no allegation or material to that effect. We, therefore, hold that the settlement in favour of Respondent No. 3 cannot be held to be illegal on the above count. 10. The next submission of Mr. Deka is that the land allotted to Respondent No. 3 was kepi reserved for expansion of the road, drainage and footpath and hence it could not have been allotted to Respondent No. 3. The Petitioner is also a private limited company and it got settlement of the Govt. land, which was reserved for village grazing. Hence it does not lie in their mouth to challenge the settlement of Govt. land in favour of any other person. As a matter of fact, the Petitioner also tried to obtain settlement of this land but it was refused to them. The allotment was made by the competent authority. 11. The next submission of Mr. Deka is that the Respondent authority has allotted the land which is on the road side in violation of Rule 23 of Settlement Rules under Assam Land and Revenue Regulations 1886. The rule regarding settlement of roadside land reads as follows: 23.(1) Nothing in these rules shall entitle any persons to obtain a lease in respect of land within 35 feet from the foot of the slope of a public road. Any person occupying or encroaching on such land shall be liable to ejectment under Rule 18 of these rules. Explanation - The expression "public road" includes any road maintained by the State Government or by a local board, and any other road declared by the Deputy Commissioner to be public road for the purpose of this rule. Any person occupying or encroaching on such land shall be liable to ejectment under Rule 18 of these rules. Explanation - The expression "public road" includes any road maintained by the State Government or by a local board, and any other road declared by the Deputy Commissioner to be public road for the purpose of this rule. (2) Except under the general or special orders of the State Government, no new periodic lease shall be issued in respect of land within one chain (66 feet) of the 35 feet reservation alongside roads maintained by the State Government. 12. On enquiry by this Court, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 has fairly submitted that the settlement of the portion of land made in favour of Respondent No. 3 falls within 35 feet restricted under the rule and the submission was however made that the restriction regarding 35 feet is not applicable in respect of town land. We are, however, not convinced with the above submission, as because the space of 35 feet from the center of the road has been provided for the convenience of the Petitioner and to avoid decongestion. This order will also take care of the Petitioner's allegation that the land was meant for expansion of road, drainage, footpath etc. While promulgating the rules, Govt. was not aware of the fact that where the roadside land is allotted or allowed to be used without keeping any margin it will affect the development of the town and city and also effect the scientific planning of the roads, drainage, footpath etc. We are, therefore, of the view that settlement made in favour of the Respondent No. 3 shall be subject to the restrictions imposed and Respondent No. 3 shall have to leave the space of 35 feet from the center of A.K. Azad Road for expansion of the road, drainage, footpath etc. If it reduces the area of settlement in favour of Respondent No. 3, he will be entitled to the reduced area only. The Respondent authorities are directed to very the same and do the needful. The area of settlement stands modified to the above, if required. 13. During the course of arguments, Mr. If it reduces the area of settlement in favour of Respondent No. 3, he will be entitled to the reduced area only. The Respondent authorities are directed to very the same and do the needful. The area of settlement stands modified to the above, if required. 13. During the course of arguments, Mr. Deka has further submitted that the land in question falls under the Master Plan and Zoning Regulations of the Guwahati Metropolitan Area and it cannot be allowed for setting up of printing press for which the land has been allotted to Respondent No. 3. 14. The Respondent GMDA has filed an affidavit-in-opposition wherein it has been stated that the land in question has been allotted to the Respondent No. 3 for setting up a printing press. The area/land falls within the residential zone as per Master Plan and Zoning Regulation. The printing press is allowed in the residential zone - on appeal to the authority under Clause 13.7.2.1 B.e Annexure-1 Sl. 19 to the Master Plan and Zoning regulation - "Printing Press with aggregate motive power not exceeding 10 KW and not employing more than 10 persons" 15. Mr. Sarma Baruah has submitted that Respondent No. 3 proposes to establish a printing press within the limitations provided for complying with the zoning regulations, etc. 16. Upon consideration of the entire materials as stated above, we reject the contentions of the Petitioner for quashing the order of settlement in favour of Respondent No. 3. The impugned order of settlement in favour of the Respondent No. 3 is maintained subject to the observations made in this order regarding the settlement of 35 feet of land from the center of AK Azad road to the outer limit of the area made in favour of the Respondent No. 3 and if the entire area gets reduced, the settlement shall stand modified. 17. The writ petition stands disposed of.