JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner an advocate, who admittedly was in occupation of Government land, is aggrieved by his eviction from the land and demolition of his property therein. 2. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner had purchased the possessory right of the land measuring 1 katha and 10 lechas under Dag No. 359 situated at Village Khanapara, Mauza Beltola, Sub- Registry Guwahati in the district of Kamrup. Such purchase was in the year 1976 (18.6.1976). According to the petitioner he developed the land by plantation, etc., and also paid the land revenue from 1979-1991 when the Government stopped receiving such revenue (Touzibahi). 3. The wife of the petitioner who is a Government employee, availed official Government quarter in the year 1990 and the family of the petitioner started living there. The house which was constructed by the petitioner on the Government land was rented out and it remained under rent till 1997. The petitioner also paid municipal tax to the Guwahati Municipality Corporation ('GMC') from January 1997 to March 2005. 4. In April 2000 the petitioner made an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup for settlement of the said Government land under his possession. While describing the children of the petitioner in paragraph 2 of the writ petition, he has stated that his eldest daughter is studying in Civil Aviation Technology in New Delhi. His application for settlement of land was processed by the Chief Revenue Assistant and other authorities. Be it stated here that in the application, the petitioner described himself as landless and economically backward person. It appears that some query was made as to whether the land in question was involved in the particular writ proceeding [CR(SH) No. 128/98]. By Annexure II order dated 4.1.2004, the Chief Revenue Assistant in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Revenue Settlement Branch requested the Circle Officer, Dispur Revenue Circle to submit a fresh proposal. 5. According to the petitioner, some surrendered militants came to occupy another plot of Government land lying vacant adjacent to the petitioner's land. However, later on they left the place and thereafter the Association called Minibus Association occupied and developed the said plot of land for the purpose of shifting their stand from Paltanbazar to Khanapara. 5. According to the petitioner, some surrendered militants came to occupy another plot of Government land lying vacant adjacent to the petitioner's land. However, later on they left the place and thereafter the Association called Minibus Association occupied and developed the said plot of land for the purpose of shifting their stand from Paltanbazar to Khanapara. It will be pertinent to mention here that the said land along with the land of the petitioner is adjacent to the National Highway No. 37. According to the petitioner, the said Association also abandoned the land and the same was occupied by the Assam State Transport Corporation (ASTC) on 24.12.2003 and started functioning from there. The constructions were made for the bus station and the said bus station is known as Khanapara ASTC Bus Station. 6. When efforts were made to evict the petitioner and others by the ASTC authority, the petitioner and others filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 570/2004 and the same was disposed of by order dated 5.2.2004 providing that if the petitioners were in possession of the land in question, they should not be evicted from the same except in accordance with law. After such an order passed by this Court, the petitioner once again approached the revenue authority for settlement of the land. However, he was evicted from the land on 25.2.2005 which according to the petitioner was without any prior notice. The construction made by the petitioner was also demolished. After such eviction of the petitioner from the land by the respondents, he lodged an FIR with the Basistha Police Station on 25.2.2005. According to the petitioner, the loss incurred by him for such eviction and demolition of his house stood at Rs. 10 lakhs and that he is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 21,47,000. 7. It is in the aforesaid backdrop this writ petition has been filed with the prayer for declaring the eviction of the petitioner as illegal and to pay compensation to him. 8. The respondents in their counter affidavits have denied the contentions raised in the writ petition. In the affidavit filed by the Managing Director of the ASTC. It has been stated that the Dispur bus station has been shifted to Khanapara where the petitioner was in occupation of the Government land unauthorizedly. 8. The respondents in their counter affidavits have denied the contentions raised in the writ petition. In the affidavit filed by the Managing Director of the ASTC. It has been stated that the Dispur bus station has been shifted to Khanapara where the petitioner was in occupation of the Government land unauthorizedly. Such shifting of the bus station from Dispur to Khanapara was required to facilitate renovation/reconstruction of Dispur Capital Complex. On the prayer of the Corporation, the Government of Assam in the Revenue Department allotted it a plot of land measuring 5 bighas, 1 katha covering Dag No. 359 at Village Khanapara under Beltola Mouza. The land is roadside land adjacent to the National Highway No. 37. The Corporation was allotted with the land on payment of premium of Rs. 28,45,824. Presently the bus station at Khanapara is being used by the Corporation and some buses are also operating under the banner of the Corporation as per the scheme of the Corporation. 9. In the affidavit it has further been stated that the Corporation does not have any other land except the said land at Khanapara which is suitable for running the bus station. Further statement made is that, the land allotted to the Corporation is a Government land and was originally reserved in the name of general administration department by the Government of Assam. It was found that the petitioner was encroaching upon a portion of the land (about 2 kathas). The Corporation after allotment of the land, has developed the same by earth filling and constructing the station yard. However, in view of the interim order passed, that part of the land under occupation of the petitioner could not be developed which has caused inconvenience to the Corporation and to the general public. 10. It appears that a number of affidavits have been filed by the petitioner. Other respondents have also filed their affidavits. The gist of the stand of the respondents is that since the petitioner was in occupation of the Government land, he has rightly been evicted from the same when public purpose demanded such eviction. Referring to the land policy of 1989 of the Government of Assam, it is the stand of the petitioner that he is entitled to get settlement of the land, he being landless and economically backward. Referring to the land policy of 1989 of the Government of Assam, it is the stand of the petitioner that he is entitled to get settlement of the land, he being landless and economically backward. In the affidavit filed by the District Administration, it is the stand that the prayer of the petitioner for settlement of the land could not be considered as the land was required for public purpose being situated adjacent to the National Highway. It has been stated that the petitioner has been evicted from the land as per the provision of Rule 18(2) of the Assam Land Revenue Regulation, 1886. Such eviction was on 25.2.2005. In the affidavit the eviction Case No. 7/2004-2005 has been referred to and it has been stated that the eviction order dated 16.2.2005 was passed under Rule 18(2) of the aforesaid Regulation. It is the stand in the affidavit that the land measuring 5 bighas, 1 lecha which includes the land unauthorizedly occupied by the petitioner was handed over to the ASTC upon clearing the encroachment. 11. The petitioner who has argued his case in person has referred to the large number of affidavits he has filed so as to contend that his eviction from the land was illegal and unauthorized/According to him he was entitled to notice before such eviction. He has also referred to the following decisions in support of his case. (a) U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Anr. v. Friends Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. AIR 1996 SC 114 . (b) Ahmedabad Municipality Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulabkhan and Ors. AIR 1997 SC 152 . (c) Shew Chand Chouhan and Ors. v. The Revenue Officer Karbi Anglong District Council 1984 (1) GLR 474. (d) Government of A.P. v. Thummala Krishna Rao and Anr. AIR 1982 SC 1081 . (e) Wire-netting Stores v. Delhi Development Authority (1969) 3 SCC 415 . (f) Olga Tellis and Ors. v. Bombay Municipality Corporation and Ors. AIR 1986 SC 180 . (g) Udaldas Panika and Anr. v. Karbi Anglong District Council (1989) 2 GLT 126. (h) Imlitemjen Jamir and Ors. v. Nagaland and Ors. 2004 (Supp.) GLT 71. (i) Kamala Kahta Deka v. State of Assam and Ors. (1983) 2 GLR 258. 12. Ms. R. Chokraborty, learned Addl. v. Bombay Municipality Corporation and Ors. AIR 1986 SC 180 . (g) Udaldas Panika and Anr. v. Karbi Anglong District Council (1989) 2 GLT 126. (h) Imlitemjen Jamir and Ors. v. Nagaland and Ors. 2004 (Supp.) GLT 71. (i) Kamala Kahta Deka v. State of Assam and Ors. (1983) 2 GLR 258. 12. Ms. R. Chokraborty, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, on the other hand submitted that since the land in question is admittedly a Government land, the petitioner cannot claim it as a matter of right to get settlement of the same and/or to continue to occupy the land unauthorisedly. Ms. U. Baruah, learned Standing counsel, ASTC referring to the provision of Rule 18(2) of the aforesaid regulation submitted that the petitioner having been evicted from the land for public purpose, the individual right of the petitioner cannot prevail over the public purpose. Mr. D. Saikia, learned standing counsel, GMC and Ms. M. Hazarika, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. M. Baruah, learned Standing counsel, GMDA submitted that the said authorities have nothing to do with the matter. Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 10 and 11, submitted that the individual right of the petitioner even if any, cannot prevail over the public purpose. Referring to the sand of the said respondents in Misc. Case Nos. 836/08 and 837/08 and the decision of this Court reported in Kundargaon Anti Eviction Action Committee v. State of Assam 2006 (3) GLR 99, he submitted that the petitioner having occupied the Government land unauthorisedly and upon his eviction from the same, cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction and that too with disputed questions of fact. According to him the petitioner has taken a chance for favourable consideration after occupying the Government land forcibly and remaining in possession of the same unauthorisedly. 13. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and the materials on record. There is no dispute that the petitioner was in occupation of the Government land which falls within the area of the land allotted to the ASTC by the Government for a public purpose. 13. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and the materials on record. There is no dispute that the petitioner was in occupation of the Government land which falls within the area of the land allotted to the ASTC by the Government for a public purpose. The Dispur ASTC bus station was required to be shifted for public purpose and accordingly the Government in consideration of the practical reality and as a public policy decided to allot the particular plot of land to the ASTC and the said authority has now occupied the land. The land has been developed by the ASTC and the bus terminus has been constructed and as per the own admission of the petitioner, the (sic) under ASTC are running from the said bus station. 14. It is not only the petitioner who has been evicted from the land but other such encroachers of the Government land have also been evicted. It will pertinent to mention here that the earlier writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 570/04 was filed by as many as 25 number of writ petitioners out of which the present petitioner was the petitioner No. 1. The writ petition was filed when a drive was made to evict the unauthorized occupants of the Government land and the writ petition was disposed of by order dated 5.2.2004 in terms of which the competent authority was authorized to evict the encroachers in accordance with law. Merely because the prayer of the petitioner for settlement of the land was processed at some level including at the level of the Chief Revenue Assistant whose authority in such matter is not known, the petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right that the land must be settled with him. If the petitioner occupied the Government land and made certain constructions on it even before the land was settled with him, same was at his own risk and cost. No one has any right to make construction over the Government land and then to say, upon eviction and demolition of such construction that such eviction and demolition were illegal and consequently he is entitled to get compensation. 15. After the petitioner was evicted from the land and his illegal construction was demolished, he lodged an FIR with the Basistha Police Station about which mention has been made above. 15. After the petitioner was evicted from the land and his illegal construction was demolished, he lodged an FIR with the Basistha Police Station about which mention has been made above. The copy of the FIR dated 25.2.2005 has been annexed as Annexure-19 which discloses as many as 9 business establishments. Thus, the petitioner claiming himself to be a landless and economically backward person while staying at the Government allotted quarter to his wife made use of the Government land for rent purpose and upon demolition of such unauthorized construction, has filed the writ petition. 16. A little discussion about the cases cited by the petitioner is made. In Thummala Krishna Rao (supra), the Apex Court dealing with the power of the Government to evict summarily the person in unauthorized occupation of Government land under the provision of Section 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, held that such course of action cannot be resorted to if there is bona fide dispute regarding the title of the Government to the said property. 17. In Olga Tellis (supra) while holding that the right to life includes right to livelihood, it was observed that deprivation of such right cannot be accepted except just and fair procedure established by law. Similarly, in Nawab Khan Gulabkhan (supra), the requirement of following the principle of natural justice as per the provision of Bombay Municipal Corporation Act was emphasized. In Friends Co-op. Housing Society Ltd (supra), it was observed right to shelter springs from the right to resident assured in Article 19 and right to life in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 18. In Udaldas Panika (supra), it was held that notice for eviction without proper description of the land deprived the petitioner all reasonable opportunity of being heard. Imlitemjen Jamir (supra), was a case in which the allotment order was cancelled without affording the opportunity of hearing to the allottee. In this context, it was held that such cancellation was violative of the principle of natural justice. In Kamala Kanta Deka (supra), dealing with the scope and ambit of Rule 18(2) of the aforesaid regulation, it was held that the recourse to summary remedy of eviction can be resorted to under Rule 18(2) only in respect of the land specified in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 18. In Kamala Kanta Deka (supra), dealing with the scope and ambit of Rule 18(2) of the aforesaid regulation, it was held that the recourse to summary remedy of eviction can be resorted to under Rule 18(2) only in respect of the land specified in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 18. In that particular case, upon failure of the respondents to show that the land from which the petitioner had been evicted was one of such land, the eviction procedure was held to be void ab initio. In Shew Chand Chouhan (supra), when it was found that the eviction of the petitioner was illegal, a direction was issued to adequately compensate the petitioner. In M/s. Wire-netting Stores (supra), when it was found that the procedure was not followed towards making eviction, it was held that such eviction was not only contrary to law but also to the principles of natural justice. 19. None of the aforesaid cases are applicable to the case in hand. It is not the case of the petitioner that the land in question does not come into the purview of Rule 18(2) of the aforesaid Regulation. As noticed above, the eviction case No. 7/2004-2005 under Rule 18(2) was initiated against the petitioner and it is on the basis of the order passed therein, he was evicted from the Government land. While emphasizing the right to life and livelihood, it cannot be said that anybody can occupy any Government land and continue to occupy the same irrespective of the public purpose for which the land is required. In the instant case, the petitioner unauthoirsedly occupied the Government land on the basis of possessory right purchased by him. The copy of the sale deed has boon annexed to the writ petition. It was a deed between the petitioner and the one who had earlier occupied the land. Such deed is of no consequence when the real owner of the land, i.e., the Government, is not involved in the said deed. As to for what purpose the land has been utilized by the petitioner after projecting himself as the landless and economically backward person has been noticed above. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 20. The plea of the petitioner that before evicting him he was not put to any kind of notice, is not at all tenable. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 20. The plea of the petitioner that before evicting him he was not put to any kind of notice, is not at all tenable. Law is well settled that Rule 18(2) of the Regulation does not provide for issuance of any notice before eviction, unlike Sub-rule (3) of the said Regulation. When the petitioner was found to be in occupation of the Government land procedure under Rule 18(2) was initiated and he was evicted as per the procedure laid down therein. In the earlier round of litigation initiated by the petitioner and others, the only order passed by this Court was not to evict the petitioner except in accordance in law. The procedure in this regard as laid down in Rule 18(2) having been followed, the petitioner cannot make any grievance against the same. 21. In Kundargaon Anti Eviction Action Committee (supra), it has been held that Rule 18(2) empowers the authority to evict any person in possession of the land previously reserved for public purpose when no bona fide claim/right is involved. It has further been held that Rule 18(2) does not provide any issuance of notice before eviction. Even in the case of Kamala Kanta Deka (supra), referred to by the petitioner, the Division Bench of this Court declared that recourse to summary remedy of eviction can be resorted to under Rule 18(2) in respect of and specified in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 18. The land in question being under specification in Rule 18(2), the authorities rightly took recourse to the said rule towards eviction of the petitioner from the land. 22. As noticed above, the land in question is a roadside land adjacent to National Highway. The petitioner after purchasing the possessory right made unauthorized construction over there and rented out such construction to others. The land being a Government land, the Government is within its competence and jurisdiction to settle the same with the ASTC for a public purpose. Such public purpose will naturally outweigh any other right. If the petitioner had made some construction over the Government land for the rent purpose, same was at his own risk and cost. Such unauthorized construction cannot vest him with any kind of right so as to contend that his eviction from the land and demolition of the construction were illegal. Such public purpose will naturally outweigh any other right. If the petitioner had made some construction over the Government land for the rent purpose, same was at his own risk and cost. Such unauthorized construction cannot vest him with any kind of right so as to contend that his eviction from the land and demolition of the construction were illegal. 23. The petitioner by filing the writ petition followed by number of affidavits has also raised many disputed questions of fact in support of his case of alleged illegal eviction from the Government land. Needless to say that such disputed question of fact cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction. The fact that the land is a Government land has not be disputed by the petitioner. Merely because he has sought for settlement of the land with him on the basic foundation of unauthorized occupation of the land and making certain construction over it, the petitioner cannot project his case to be one governed by the principles enunciated in the decisions referred to by him. Government is the best judge as to how its land shall be utilized. The land was found suitable for bus terminus of the ASTC and accordingly, on payment of premium the land was allotted to the ASTC. The ASTC has occupied the land and already constructed the bus station. Such public purpose must give way to any narrow individual interest without there being any fundamental or legal right. 24. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The interim order passed on 2.3.2005 stands vacated. Petition dismissed 2010 (5) GLR 258, 2009 (3) GLT 436 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI BIPLAB KUMAR SHARMA, J. Md. Khorshed Ali – Appellant Vs. State of Assam and Ors. – Respondent WP (C) No. 1579 of 2005 Decided On: 24.04.2009 Advocate Appeared For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Party-in-Person For Respondents/Defendant: M. Hazarika, R. Chokraborty, U. Baruah, D. Saikia, P.K. Roychoudhuryand M. Baruah, Advs. Acts/Rules/Orders: Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act - Section 6; Bombay Municipal Corporation Act ;Constitution of India - Article 19, Constitution of India - Article 21; Assam Land Revenue Regulation, 1886 - Rule 18(2), Assam Land Revenue Regulation, 1886 - Rule 18(3) Cases Referred: U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Anr. v. Friends Co-op. v. Friends Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. AIR 1996 SC 114 ; Ahmedabad Municipality Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulabkhan and Ors. AIR 1997 SC 152 ; Shew Chand Chouhan and Ors. v. The Revenue Officer Karbi Anglong District Council 1984 (1) GLR 474; Government of A.P. v. Thummala Krishna Rao and Anr. AIR 1982 SC 1081 ; Wire-netting Stores v. Delhi Development Authority (1969) 3 SCC 415 ; Olga Tellis and Ors. v. Bombay Municipality Corporation and Ors. AIR 1986 SC 180 ; Udaldas Panika and Anr. v. Karbi Anglong District Council (1989) 2 GLT 126; Imlitemjen Jamir and Ors. v. Nagaland and Ors. 2004 (Supp.) GLT 71; Kamala Kahta Deka v. State of Assam and Ors. (1983) 2 GLR 258; Kundargaon Anti Eviction Action Committee v. State of Assam 2006 (3) GLR 99 JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner an advocate, who admittedly was in occupation of Government land, is aggrieved by his eviction from the land and demolition of his property therein. 2. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner had purchased the possessory right of the land measuring 1 katha and 10 lechas under Dag No. 359 situated at Village Khanapara, Mauza Beltola, Sub- Registry Guwahati in the district of Kamrup. Such purchase was in the year 1976 (18.6.1976). According to the petitioner he developed the land by plantation, etc., and also paid the land revenue from 1979-1991 when the Government stopped receiving such revenue (Touzibahi). 3. The wife of the petitioner who is a Government employee, availed official Government quarter in the year 1990 and the family of the petitioner started living there. The house which was constructed by the petitioner on the Government land was rented out and it remained under rent till 1997. The petitioner also paid municipal tax to the Guwahati Municipality Corporation ('GMC') from January 1997 to March 2005. 4. In April 2000 the petitioner made an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup for settlement of the said Government land under his possession. While describing the children of the petitioner in paragraph 2 of the writ petition, he has stated that his eldest daughter is studying in Civil Aviation Technology in New Delhi. His application for settlement of land was processed by the Chief Revenue Assistant and other authorities. Be it stated here that in the application, the petitioner described himself as landless and economically backward person. His application for settlement of land was processed by the Chief Revenue Assistant and other authorities. Be it stated here that in the application, the petitioner described himself as landless and economically backward person. It appears that some query was made as to whether the land in question was involved in the particular writ proceeding [CR(SH) No. 128/98]. By Annexure II order dated 4.1.2004, the Chief Revenue Assistant in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Revenue Settlement Branch requested the Circle Officer, Dispur Revenue Circle to submit a fresh proposal. 5. According to the petitioner, some surrendered militants came to occupy another plot of Government land lying vacant adjacent to the petitioner's land. However, later on they left the place and thereafter the Association called Minibus Association occupied and developed the said plot of land for the purpose of shifting their stand from Paltanbazar to Khanapara. It will be pertinent to mention here that the said land along with the land of the petitioner is adjacent to the National Highway No. 37. According to the petitioner, the said Association also abandoned the land and the same was occupied by the Assam State Transport Corporation (ASTC) on 24.12.2003 and started functioning from there. The constructions were made for the bus station and the said bus station is known as Khanapara ASTC Bus Station. 6. When efforts were made to evict the petitioner and others by the ASTC authority, the petitioner and others filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 570/2004 and the same was disposed of by order dated 5.2.2004 providing that if the petitioners were in possession of the land in question, they should not be evicted from the same except in accordance with law. After such an order passed by this Court, the petitioner once again approached the revenue authority for settlement of the land. However, he was evicted from the land on 25.2.2005 which according to the petitioner was without any prior notice. The construction made by the petitioner was also demolished. After such eviction of the petitioner from the land by the respondents, he lodged an FIR with the Basistha Police Station on 25.2.2005. According to the petitioner, the loss incurred by him for such eviction and demolition of his house stood at Rs. 10 lakhs and that he is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 21,47,000. 7. After such eviction of the petitioner from the land by the respondents, he lodged an FIR with the Basistha Police Station on 25.2.2005. According to the petitioner, the loss incurred by him for such eviction and demolition of his house stood at Rs. 10 lakhs and that he is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 21,47,000. 7. It is in the aforesaid backdrop this writ petition has been filed with the prayer for declaring the eviction of the petitioner as illegal and to pay compensation to him. 8. The respondents in their counter affidavits have denied the contentions raised in the writ petition. In the affidavit filed by the Managing Director of the ASTC. It has been stated that the Dispur bus station has been shifted to Khanapara where the petitioner was in occupation of the Government land unauthorizedly. Such shifting of the bus station from Dispur to Khanapara was required to facilitate renovation/reconstruction of Dispur Capital Complex. On the prayer of the Corporation, the Government of Assam in the Revenue Department allotted it a plot of land measuring 5 bighas, 1 katha covering Dag No. 359 at Village Khanapara under Beltola Mouza. The land is roadside land adjacent to the National Highway No. 37. The Corporation was allotted with the land on payment of premium of Rs. 28,45,824. Presently the bus station at Khanapara is being used by the Corporation and some buses are also operating under the banner of the Corporation as per the scheme of the Corporation. 9. In the affidavit it has further been stated that the Corporation does not have any other land except the said land at Khanapara which is suitable for running the bus station. Further statement made is that, the land allotted to the Corporation is a Government land and was originally reserved in the name of general administration department by the Government of Assam. It was found that the petitioner was encroaching upon a portion of the land (about 2 kathas). The Corporation after allotment of the land, has developed the same by earth filling and constructing the station yard. However, in view of the interim order passed, that part of the land under occupation of the petitioner could not be developed which has caused inconvenience to the Corporation and to the general public. 10. It appears that a number of affidavits have been filed by the petitioner. However, in view of the interim order passed, that part of the land under occupation of the petitioner could not be developed which has caused inconvenience to the Corporation and to the general public. 10. It appears that a number of affidavits have been filed by the petitioner. Other respondents have also filed their affidavits. The gist of the stand of the respondents is that since the petitioner was in occupation of the Government land, he has rightly been evicted from the same when public purpose demanded such eviction. Referring to the land policy of 1989 of the Government of Assam, it is the stand of the petitioner that he is entitled to get settlement of the land, he being landless and economically backward. In the affidavit filed by the District Administration, it is the stand that the prayer of the petitioner for settlement of the land could not be considered as the land was required for public purpose being situated adjacent to the National Highway. It has been stated that the petitioner has been evicted from the land as per the provision of Rule 18(2) of the Assam Land Revenue Regulation, 1886. Such eviction was on 25.2.2005. In the affidavit the eviction Case No. 7/2004-2005 has been referred to and it has been stated that the eviction order dated 16.2.2005 was passed under Rule 18(2) of the aforesaid Regulation. It is the stand in the affidavit that the land measuring 5 bighas, 1 lecha which includes the land unauthorizedly occupied by the petitioner was handed over to the ASTC upon clearing the encroachment. 11. The petitioner who has argued his case in person has referred to the large number of affidavits he has filed so as to contend that his eviction from the land was illegal and unauthorized/According to him he was entitled to notice before such eviction. He has also referred to the following decisions in support of his case. (a) U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Anr. v. Friends Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. AIR 1996 SC 114 . (b) Ahmedabad Municipality Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulabkhan and Ors. AIR 1997 SC 152 . (c) Shew Chand Chouhan and Ors. v. The Revenue Officer Karbi Anglong District Council 1984 (1) GLR 474. (d) Government of A.P. v. Thummala Krishna Rao and Anr. AIR 1982 SC 1081 . v. Friends Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. AIR 1996 SC 114 . (b) Ahmedabad Municipality Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulabkhan and Ors. AIR 1997 SC 152 . (c) Shew Chand Chouhan and Ors. v. The Revenue Officer Karbi Anglong District Council 1984 (1) GLR 474. (d) Government of A.P. v. Thummala Krishna Rao and Anr. AIR 1982 SC 1081 . (e) Wire-netting Stores v. Delhi Development Authority (1969) 3 SCC 415 . (f) Olga Tellis and Ors. v. Bombay Municipality Corporation and Ors. AIR 1986 SC 180 . (g) Udaldas Panika and Anr. v. Karbi Anglong District Council (1989) 2 GLT 126. (h) Imlitemjen Jamir and Ors. v. Nagaland and Ors. 2004 (Supp.) GLT 71. (i) Kamala Kahta Deka v. State of Assam and Ors. (1983) 2 GLR 258. 12. Ms. R. Chokraborty, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, on the other hand submitted that since the land in question is admittedly a Government land, the petitioner cannot claim it as a matter of right to get settlement of the same and/or to continue to occupy the land unauthorisedly. Ms. U. Baruah, learned Standing counsel, ASTC referring to the provision of Rule 18(2) of the aforesaid regulation submitted that the petitioner having been evicted from the land for public purpose, the individual right of the petitioner cannot prevail over the public purpose. Mr. D. Saikia, learned standing counsel, GMC and Ms. M. Hazarika, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. M. Baruah, learned Standing counsel, GMDA submitted that the said authorities have nothing to do with the matter. Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 10 and 11, submitted that the individual right of the petitioner even if any, cannot prevail over the public purpose. Referring to the sand of the said respondents in Misc. Case Nos. 836/08 and 837/08 and the decision of this Court reported in Kundargaon Anti Eviction Action Committee v. State of Assam 2006 (3) GLR 99, he submitted that the petitioner having occupied the Government land unauthorisedly and upon his eviction from the same, cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction and that too with disputed questions of fact. According to him the petitioner has taken a chance for favourable consideration after occupying the Government land forcibly and remaining in possession of the same unauthorisedly. 13. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and the materials on record. According to him the petitioner has taken a chance for favourable consideration after occupying the Government land forcibly and remaining in possession of the same unauthorisedly. 13. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and the materials on record. There is no dispute that the petitioner was in occupation of the Government land which falls within the area of the land allotted to the ASTC by the Government for a public purpose. The Dispur ASTC bus station was required to be shifted for public purpose and accordingly the Government in consideration of the practical reality and as a public policy decided to allot the particular plot of land to the ASTC and the said authority has now occupied the land. The land has been developed by the ASTC and the bus terminus has been constructed and as per the own admission of the petitioner, the (sic) under ASTC are running from the said bus station. 14. It is not only the petitioner who has been evicted from the land but other such encroachers of the Government land have also been evicted. It will pertinent to mention here that the earlier writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 570/04 was filed by as many as 25 number of writ petitioners out of which the present petitioner was the petitioner No. 1. The writ petition was filed when a drive was made to evict the unauthorized occupants of the Government land and the writ petition was disposed of by order dated 5.2.2004 in terms of which the competent authority was authorized to evict the encroachers in accordance with law. Merely because the prayer of the petitioner for settlement of the land was processed at some level including at the level of the Chief Revenue Assistant whose authority in such matter is not known, the petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right that the land must be settled with him. If the petitioner occupied the Government land and made certain constructions on it even before the land was settled with him, same was at his own risk and cost. No one has any right to make construction over the Government land and then to say, upon eviction and demolition of such construction that such eviction and demolition were illegal and consequently he is entitled to get compensation. 15. No one has any right to make construction over the Government land and then to say, upon eviction and demolition of such construction that such eviction and demolition were illegal and consequently he is entitled to get compensation. 15. After the petitioner was evicted from the land and his illegal construction was demolished, he lodged an FIR with the Basistha Police Station about which mention has been made above. The copy of the FIR dated 25.2.2005 has been annexed as Annexure-19 which discloses as many as 9 business establishments. Thus, the petitioner claiming himself to be a landless and economically backward person while staying at the Government allotted quarter to his wife made use of the Government land for rent purpose and upon demolition of such unauthorized construction, has filed the writ petition. 16. A little discussion about the cases cited by the petitioner is made. In Thummala Krishna Rao (supra), the Apex Court dealing with the power of the Government to evict summarily the person in unauthorized occupation of Government land under the provision of Section 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, held that such course of action cannot be resorted to if there is bona fide dispute regarding the title of the Government to the said property. 17. In Olga Tellis (supra) while holding that the right to life includes right to livelihood, it was observed that deprivation of such right cannot be accepted except just and fair procedure established by law. Similarly, in Nawab Khan Gulabkhan (supra), the requirement of following the principle of natural justice as per the provision of Bombay Municipal Corporation Act was emphasized. In Friends Co-op. Housing Society Ltd (supra), it was observed right to shelter springs from the right to resident assured in Article 19 and right to life in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 18. In Udaldas Panika (supra), it was held that notice for eviction without proper description of the land deprived the petitioner all reasonable opportunity of being heard. Imlitemjen Jamir (supra), was a case in which the allotment order was cancelled without affording the opportunity of hearing to the allottee. In this context, it was held that such cancellation was violative of the principle of natural justice. Imlitemjen Jamir (supra), was a case in which the allotment order was cancelled without affording the opportunity of hearing to the allottee. In this context, it was held that such cancellation was violative of the principle of natural justice. In Kamala Kanta Deka (supra), dealing with the scope and ambit of Rule 18(2) of the aforesaid regulation, it was held that the recourse to summary remedy of eviction can be resorted to under Rule 18(2) only in respect of the land specified in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 18. In that particular case, upon failure of the respondents to show that the land from which the petitioner had been evicted was one of such land, the eviction procedure was held to be void ab initio. In Shew Chand Chouhan (supra), when it was found that the eviction of the petitioner was illegal, a direction was issued to adequately compensate the petitioner. In M/s. Wire-netting Stores (supra), when it was found that the procedure was not followed towards making eviction, it was held that such eviction was not only contrary to law but also to the principles of natural justice. 19. None of the aforesaid cases are applicable to the case in hand. It is not the case of the petitioner that the land in question does not come into the purview of Rule 18(2) of the aforesaid Regulation. As noticed above, the eviction case No. 7/2004-2005 under Rule 18(2) was initiated against the petitioner and it is on the basis of the order passed therein, he was evicted from the Government land. While emphasizing the right to life and livelihood, it cannot be said that anybody can occupy any Government land and continue to occupy the same irrespective of the public purpose for which the land is required. In the instant case, the petitioner unauthoirsedly occupied the Government land on the basis of possessory right purchased by him. The copy of the sale deed has boon annexed to the writ petition. It was a deed between the petitioner and the one who had earlier occupied the land. Such deed is of no consequence when the real owner of the land, i.e., the Government, is not involved in the said deed. As to for what purpose the land has been utilized by the petitioner after projecting himself as the landless and economically backward person has been noticed above. Such deed is of no consequence when the real owner of the land, i.e., the Government, is not involved in the said deed. As to for what purpose the land has been utilized by the petitioner after projecting himself as the landless and economically backward person has been noticed above. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 20. The plea of the petitioner that before evicting him he was not put to any kind of notice, is not at all tenable. Law is well settled that Rule 18(2) of the Regulation does not provide for issuance of any notice before eviction, unlike Sub-rule (3) of the said Regulation. When the petitioner was found to be in occupation of the Government land procedure under Rule 18(2) was initiated and he was evicted as per the procedure laid down therein. In the earlier round of litigation initiated by the petitioner and others, the only order passed by this Court was not to evict the petitioner except in accordance in law. The procedure in this regard as laid down in Rule 18(2) having been followed, the petitioner cannot make any grievance against the same. 21. In Kundargaon Anti Eviction Action Committee (supra), it has been held that Rule 18(2) empowers the authority to evict any person in possession of the land previously reserved for public purpose when no bona fide claim/right is involved. It has further been held that Rule 18(2) does not provide any issuance of notice before eviction. Even in the case of Kamala Kanta Deka (supra), referred to by the petitioner, the Division Bench of this Court declared that recourse to summary remedy of eviction can be resorted to under Rule 18(2) in respect of and specified in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 18. The land in question being under specification in Rule 18(2), the authorities rightly took recourse to the said rule towards eviction of the petitioner from the land. 22. As noticed above, the land in question is a roadside land adjacent to National Highway. The petitioner after purchasing the possessory right made unauthorized construction over there and rented out such construction to others. The land being a Government land, the Government is within its competence and jurisdiction to settle the same with the ASTC for a public purpose. Such public purpose will naturally outweigh any other right. The petitioner after purchasing the possessory right made unauthorized construction over there and rented out such construction to others. The land being a Government land, the Government is within its competence and jurisdiction to settle the same with the ASTC for a public purpose. Such public purpose will naturally outweigh any other right. If the petitioner had made some construction over the Government land for the rent purpose, same was at his own risk and cost. Such unauthorized construction cannot vest him with any kind of right so as to contend that his eviction from the land and demolition of the construction were illegal. 23. The petitioner by filing the writ petition followed by number of affidavits has also raised many disputed questions of fact in support of his case of alleged illegal eviction from the Government land. Needless to say that such disputed question of fact cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction. The fact that the land is a Government land has not be disputed by the petitioner. Merely because he has sought for settlement of the land with him on the basic foundation of unauthorized occupation of the land and making certain construction over it, the petitioner cannot project his case to be one governed by the principles enunciated in the decisions referred to by him. Government is the best judge as to how its land shall be utilized. The land was found suitable for bus terminus of the ASTC and accordingly, on payment of premium the land was allotted to the ASTC. The ASTC has occupied the land and already constructed the bus station. Such public purpose must give way to any narrow individual interest without there being any fundamental or legal right. 24. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The interim order passed on 2.3.2005 stands vacated. Petition dismissed