JUDGMENT B.P. Katakey, J. 1. The Petitioner, which is a Coordination Committee of the Tribal People Affected by the action of eviction from the land under their possession, for conversion of the M.G. Railway line to B.G. Railway line in N.C. Hill District, is espousing the cause of such tribal people of the said district numbering 245, claiming adequate compensation. 2. The case of the Petitioner committee in the writ petition is that those 245 villagers of 14 villages of N.C. Hills District, who are tribals, were residing over the plots under their possession by constructing dwelling houses, by planting valuable trees and partly by cultivating the same, which was their main source of livelihood, for about 100 of years, initially through their fore-fathers and thereafter, by them, till they were evicted by the Railway Authority for the purpose of conversion of the M.G. line to B.G. line. According to the Petitioner, since those tribal villagers were occupying the land for such a long period of time they have acquired some interest over the land and, therefore, they cannot be evicted without paying any compensation, which has been denied to them. It is the further case of the Petitioner that in fact the revenue authority of NC Hills District settled the said land under their possession. The Petitioner, therefore, prays for directing the Railway Administration to pay adequate compensation for depriving them from enjoyment of the property. The case of the Respondents/railway as reflected in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6, is that the land, which was possessed by those 245 villagers being the railway land belonging to the Union of India and they being encroachers of such railway land, no right is accrued to those villagers for compensation, on their eviction for the purpose of conversion of M.G. line to the B.G. line. The further stand of the Railway Administration is that the settlement made by the revenue authority of the district cannot also confer any right on those tribal villagers, as the Revenue Officer has no right to settle the land belonging to the railway. 3. We have heard Mr. D.C.K. Hazarika, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. J. Singh, the learned Sr. Standing Counsel, Railway. None appears for other Respondents. 4. Mr. 3. We have heard Mr. D.C.K. Hazarika, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. J. Singh, the learned Sr. Standing Counsel, Railway. None appears for other Respondents. 4. Mr. Kath Hazarika, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that even if the land belongs to the railway, as those 245 poor tribal villagers were occupying the land partly by constructing dwelling houses and partly by planting valuable trees and by cultivating, for a considerable long period of time without any disturbances from the Railway Authority, it creates some interest in favour of those villagers/over the land and, therefore, those poor tribal villagers are entitled to some compensation to be assessed by the competent authority, for the deprivation from enjoyment such land, which has been denied, more so, when the competent Revenue Authority passed the order of settlement in favour of those villagers. Mr. Kath Hazarika referring to the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 12.1.2006 has further submitted that in fact the Railway Authority pursuant to the said order passed by the Deputy Commissioner has paid the compensation to the similarly placed persons while denying the same to the persons concerned in the present writ petition. 5. Mr. Singh, the learned Sr. Standing Counsel appearing for the Railway contends that as the land belongs to the railway and those 245 villagers were encroachers in respect of such land, there is no question of payment of compensation to those persons before or after their eviction from the land, even if any settlement order has been passed by the Revenue Administration in favour of those persons as such order does not confer any right on them. 6. It is the case of the Petitioner that the concerned tribal peoples of 14 villages, who have been denied compensation, were occupying the land under their possession for more than 100 years. The plea of the Railway Administration in denying the compensation is that those villagers having occupied the railway land are not entitled to any compensation. 6. It is the case of the Petitioner that the concerned tribal peoples of 14 villages, who have been denied compensation, were occupying the land under their possession for more than 100 years. The plea of the Railway Administration in denying the compensation is that those villagers having occupied the railway land are not entitled to any compensation. It appears from the order dated 12.1.2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of the District (Annexure-IA to the writ petition) passed after making an enquiry on the claim of compensation of the land by the villagers, who have lost the land because of conversion of MG line to BG railway line in NC Hills District, that the direction was issued to pay compensation in respect of the villagers of 10 other villages by rejecting the claim of the Railway that the land under the possession of those villagers of those villages was the railway property and keeping in view the fact that the settlement was made in respect of the land by the Revenue Authority, though the railway claimed that the said property belongs to it and those persons were occupying the land for more than 80 years unauthorisedly. In the case in hand, no compensation is paid by the railway, solely on the ground that the land belongs to the railway, though such plea was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner in respect of other villages. If the concerned 245 villagers as a matter of fact were possessing the land in question for a period of more than 30 years they acquired their right by prescription of law, even if the land is the railway land. The order dated 6.5.2006 by which the learned Deputy Commissioner has refused to direct the Railway Administration to pay any compensation to those concerned 245 villagers reveals that the Deputy Commissioner before passing such order did not take into consideration the order dated 12.1.2006 passed by him in respect of other similarly placed persons and also whether the length of possession by those 245 villagers confers prescriptive right on them. The Deputy Commissioner has also ignored the fact of issuance of the order of settlement solely on the ground that the land belonged to the railway, though he did not discuss about proof, if any, produced by the Railway Administration, in that regard. 7. The Deputy Commissioner has also ignored the fact of issuance of the order of settlement solely on the ground that the land belonged to the railway, though he did not discuss about proof, if any, produced by the Railway Administration, in that regard. 7. In view of the aforesaid position, we disposed of the present petition with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, NC Hills to make an enquiry as to whether the land from which 245 concerned tribal villagers were evicted belongs to the railway and whether those 245 concerned tribal villagers, who claims to be in possession of the land were in fact possessing the said land and if so, the period of such possession as well as acquisition of prescriptive right over such land because of the long, open and uninterrupted possession. The Deputy Commissioner shall, in the event found that the concerned villagers acquired the prescriptive right, pass necessary order for payment of the adequate compensation by the Railway Administration. It is needless to say that in the enquiry to be conducted by the Deputy Commissioner, the concerned parties including the railway are to be given the reasonable opportunity of being heard and to produce necessary documents in proof of their claim. 8. The petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Petition allowed.