JUDGMENT H.N. Sarma, J. 1. The subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition is the allotment of an area of land measuring 1 katha 8 lechas each in favour of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in Dag No. 1386 Mouza Circle, Doomdooma at Doomdooma town, district Tinsukia. 2. I have heard Mr. M. Nath, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. H.M. Phukan, learned junior Government Advocate for the State of Assam. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 did not contest the proceedings inspite of service of notice. 3. The pleaded case of the petitioners is that the petitioner No 1 is the Managing Committee of Ram Takur Vidyapeeth L.P. School represented by its President which is a provincialised school; the petitioner No. 2 is a religious and charitable institution registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The petitioners are in joint occupation of a plot of land measuring 1 bigha, 4 kathas and 10 lechas covered by Dag No. 1386 and 1385 situated at Doomdooma town under doomdooma Mouza of the last 35 years. Out of the aforesaid land an area of land measuring 1 bigha, 4 katha and 10 lechas covered by Dag No. 1385 (partly) and 1386 (Partly) was prayed for settlement in favour of the school managed by the petitioner No. 1. After going through the necessary formalities, the revenue authority forwarded the matter to the Land Advisory Committee for consideration for approval in favour of the petitioners. The sub-divisional Land Advisory Committee, Tinsukia, in its meeting held on 6.1.1989 vide Resolution No. 18 approved for settlement of an area of land measuring 2 katha, 9 lechas covered by Dag No. 1386 and 2 katha 11 lechas covered by Dag No. 1385 thus totalling 1 bigha in favour of the petitioner Ram Takur Vidyapeeth and in consequence thereof a provisional certificate of settlement was also issued by the Deputy Commissioner vide letter dated 17.11.1989. The petitioners also filed another application for settlement of further area of 4 katha 10 lechas of land covered by Dag No. 1386 in favour of the petitioner No. 2 which is situated contiguous to the land settled with them for use of the temple and for children park adjacent to the temple. It is the further case of the petitioners that the settled land is under physical possession of the temple committee for the last 35 years. It is the further case of the petitioners that the settled land is under physical possession of the temple committee for the last 35 years. The said application of the petitioners was duly forwarded by the Chairman, Doomdooma Town Committee on 20.1.1985 to the Sub-divisional Deputy Collector Doomdooma Circle for necessary consideration. While the petitioners are in occupation of the aforesaid land measuring 1 Bigha, 4 Katha, 10 lechas covered by Dag Nos. 1385 and 1386, all on a sudden on 5.3.2002, a group of persons led by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 tried to occupy the said land, however, on protest by the petitioners and other people they were not successful in their attempt. On enquiry the petitioner came to know that on 6.2.2002 the Land Advisory Committee in terms of resolution adopted vide Sl. Nos. 138 and 140 approved for settlement of 1 katha 8 lechas of land each in favour of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 out of the total area covered by Dag No. 1386 (partly). Being aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioners protested by filing an application before the Deputy Commissioner Tinsukia on 6.3.2002, but without any result. Consequently the petitioners have approached this Court praying for setting aside the order of approval for settlement of the said land in favour of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as made by the Sub-divisional Land Advisory Committee in its meeting held on 6.2.2002, and to consider the prayer of the petitioners for settlement of the remaining part of the land under Dag No. 1386 in their favour. 4. No counter has been filed by the respondents although Rule was issued way back on 15.5.2002. However, Mrs. H. Phukan, learned G/A has produced the connected records from the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia. 5. Mr. M. Nath, learned Counsel for the petitioners has made the his submission on the basis of the averments made in this writ petition and Annexures contained therein whereas Mrs. Phukan confined her arguments to the factual and other aspects as reflected from the records so produced by her. In the absence of counter affidavit either by the State or the private respondents the statements regarding the factual averments made by the petitioners which are not inconsistent with record have to be accepted, and it is accepted. Phukan confined her arguments to the factual and other aspects as reflected from the records so produced by her. In the absence of counter affidavit either by the State or the private respondents the statements regarding the factual averments made by the petitioners which are not inconsistent with record have to be accepted, and it is accepted. The records so produced by the learned state counsel disclose that on the prayer of the petitioner and as recommended by the authority the sub-divisional Land Advisory Committee, Tinsukia, in its held on 6.1.1989 vide Resolution No. 138 recommended for settlement of an area of land measuring 2 katha, 11 lechas covered by Dag No. 1386 and 2 katha 9 leches covered by Dag No. 1385 totaling 1 bigha in favour of Ram Takur Vidyapeeth. Records further disclose that the said Sub-divisional Land Advisory Committee about 4 years thereafter i.e. on 6.2.2001, constituted with different members, vide Resolution No. 138 approved for settlement of an area measuring 1 katha 8 lechas covered by Dag No. 1386 of Doomdooma Town in favour of respondent No. 4. Similarly vide Resolution No. 140 adopted in the same meeting approval for settlement of another area of 1 katha, 8 lechas covered by the same dag was made in favour of respondent No. 5. Perusal of the records further disclose that the aforesaid approval for settlement in favour of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were initiated on the basis of applications filed by them. The report . submitted by the Circle Officer on those applications filed by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 indicate that an Encroachment Case No. 34/2000-2001 was pending. So far the recommendation made by the Circle Officer in respect of the prayer made by respondent No. 5 it is stated in the report that the respondent No. 5 is occupying the said land by constructing house thereon and there are lands in the name of the grandfather of the respondent at Doomdooma Town in Patta No. 120 Dag No. 21, apart from the pendency of an Encroachment case No. 34/2000-2001. On the other land for settlement in terms of the resolution No. 140 in the meeting of the Sub-divisional Land Advisory Committee dated 6.2.2001, Respondent No. 5 filed an application praying for necessary instruction to the concerned revenue staff for handing over the possession thereof at early date. On the other land for settlement in terms of the resolution No. 140 in the meeting of the Sub-divisional Land Advisory Committee dated 6.2.2001, Respondent No. 5 filed an application praying for necessary instruction to the concerned revenue staff for handing over the possession thereof at early date. If the respondent No. 5 was in possession of the said land for the last 15 years by constructing house as stated by the Circle Officer in his report dated 21.1.2001, it was not understood what was the occasion for him to apply to the Deputy Commissioner again for handing over the possession of the said land. It is thus obvious that the report submitted by the Circle Officer is not actually correct and on such factual incorrect report the Resolution No. 140 dated 6.2.2001 was passed recommending the settlement in favour of respondent No. 5. The specific case of the petitioners are that they are in actual physical occupation of the land which has been allotted in favour or respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 6. Upon scrutiny of the applications of the respondents, more particularly, respondent No. 5 it could be ascertained that he was not at all in possession of the land in question. That apart he has land in the Doomdooma Town in the name of his grandfather. Apparently these conditions were not taken note of by the revenue authority or by the Land Advisory Committee of which is the basic consideration for settlement of Govt. Land in a town area. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 did not prefer to contest this proceedings in spite of service of notice upon them. 7. Mr. Nath, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent No. 4 is a close relation of the then Vice Chairman of Tinsukia Town Committee and accordingly on his influence his case was recommended for settlement. In the matter of settlement of land which falls within the town area the authority is to follow the specific provisions as contained under Rules 64 to 67 of the Settlement Rules along with the settlement policy adopted by the State Govt. In the matter of settlement of land which falls within the town area the authority is to follow the specific provisions as contained under Rules 64 to 67 of the Settlement Rules along with the settlement policy adopted by the State Govt. In the land policy of 1989, Clause 14.3 it is provided that a person who has no land in his name or in the name of any member of his family for the last 15 years or more are some of the basic conditions for allotting govt. land in a town area. But the connected records as well as the resolution of the Land Advisory Committee dated 6.2.2001 recommending settlement of the aforesaid area of land measuring 1 katha, 8 lechas each covered by Dag No. 1386 in favour of private respondents, the respondent authorities resiled from the aforesaid basic considerations. 8. On the face of the note of the Circle Officer dated 29.1.2001 in respect of respondent No. 5 and his application dated 2.4.2004, respondent No. 5 was not at all entitled to be favoured with settlement of govt. land as per the Land Settlement Policy. In the matter of settlement of Govt. Land, under the relevant provisions of the instruction contained in the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation a person in possession is to get preference in settlement other than an outsider. In that view of the matter also the petitioners who are in possession of the disputed land in question ought to have got precedence over the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 when their application for such settlement was pending. 9. Upon getting information about recommendation for settlement of the land in question in favour of the respondents, the petitioner No. 2 filed an application dated 6.3.2002 in the form of complainant before the Deputy Committee stating their case. The said application was put up before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) on 3.4.2002 wherein the Additional Deputy Commissioner on 6.4.2002 passed an order to obtain a report from the concerned Circle Officer, Doomdooma indicating to the effect that the related land was under the possession of the school as stated by the school authority. But interestingly neither such report was called for, though order to that effect was passed, nor it was forwarded. But interestingly neither such report was called for, though order to that effect was passed, nor it was forwarded. From the relevant facts stated above as disclosed from the original records, in my considered view the recommendation settlement of an area of land measuring 1 katha, 8 lechas each in favour of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as per the resolution of the Land Advisory Committee in its meeting held on 6.2.2001 vide Resolution Nos. 138 and 140 were adopted on irrelevant consideration, ignoring relevant and necessary consideration, and there has been an error apparent on the record in regard to the decision making process. Accordingly, those recommendations have no legs to stand and are liable to be quashed, which I hereby do. 10. It is observed herein that the petitioners would be entitled to apply for necessary for settlement of the land in question which is under their possession and in the event of filing such application, the revenue authority shall dispose of the same strictly in accordance with law and as per the existing land policy for settlement of land. 11. Consequently the writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. Petition allowed