JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Hrishikesh Roy, J. Heard Mr. S.P. Roy, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P.S. Deka and Mr. N.J. Khataniar the learned Government Advocates who make submission on behalf of the respondents. 2. In these 3 cases, the petitioners have challenged eviction notices raising common grounds and the cases are disposed of with the following order. 3. It would be appropriate at the outset, to take note of the respective areas in each case from where, ejectment is proposed:- WP(C) No. 4250/2009 Encroachment Case No. 40/09 - Eviction Notice was issued to Deben Das, the petitioner No.1 . The land Schedule in the notice is as under – Land measuring 46 Bighas, 3 Kathas, 12 Lechas covered by F.C. Grant Patta No.1 of Rayati Khatiyan No.5 Dag No. (old) 31/247 (new), 31(old)/246 (new), Rayati Khatiyan No. 40, Dag No. 31 (old)/243 (New), Rayati Khatiyan No.39, Dag No.31(old)/242(new) and Rayati Khatiyan No.46, Dag No. 31(old)/245(new) of village-2, Kharguli, Chandrapur Circle, Mouza-Beltola, Kamrup, Assam, butted and bounded by – North – River Brahmaputra, South – Road East – KBF Brick-field/river Brahmaputra, West – Own land. WP(C) No.4251/2009 Encroachment Case No.42/09 - Ejectment Notice was issued to Surendra Rai, the petitioner No.2 (who is not the owner of the schedule land), by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner (M), Guwahati on 14.9.2009. The land Schedule was as under given below – Mouza – Beltola Village – 2 No. Kharguli Dag No. 71, 72, 73, 78, 58 Measurement of the land – 36 Bighas 3 Katha 3 Lechas. WP(c) No.4252/2009 Encroachment Case No. 38/09 - Similar Notice was issued to the petitioner Raj Kishore Ray, by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner (M), Guwahati on 14.9.2009. The land Schedule was shown as under – Mouza – Beltola Village – 2 No. Kharguli Dag No. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 38, 39, 40 Measurement of the land – 26 Bighas 3 Katha 17 Lechas. SUBMISSIONS OF PETITIONERS 4.1 The petitioners are operating brick kiln on their occupied lands. They have acquired vested rights over these areas and therefore recourse to summary procedure for ejectment under Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules is untenable since notice/opportunity needn’t be given in the summary procedure. 4.2 Mr. SUBMISSIONS OF PETITIONERS 4.1 The petitioners are operating brick kiln on their occupied lands. They have acquired vested rights over these areas and therefore recourse to summary procedure for ejectment under Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules is untenable since notice/opportunity needn’t be given in the summary procedure. 4.2 Mr. S.P. Roy submits that as this Court in Bandhana Goala vs. Assam Board of Revenue reported in AIR 1972 Gau 11 had held that Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules is discriminatory and void, the said provisions can’t be enforced, for ejectment of legitimate occupiers. 4.3. Next the petitioners contend that the concerned area is not reserved for road or is roadside land or needed for public purpose. Therefore the authorities can opt for Rule 18(3) but not Rule 18(2), to clear the area. Another option according to Mr. Roy is recourse to the Assam Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the Public Premises Eviction Act”) 4.4 The petitioners argue that forcible eviction in a summary proceeding should not be allowed as the petitioners have been in occupation without any obstruction from the Govt. authorities. Moreover as the occupation is for last over 30 years, the learned Counsel claims a right of adverse possession, under Article 111 of Part-IX of the Limitation Act, 1963 and contends that the state has abdicated their right to evict the occupiers, under the principles of right of adverse possession. SUBMISSION OF THE RESPONDENTS 5.1 Mr. P.S. Deka, the learned Govt. advocate projects that defects in the eviction mechanism noted in the case of Bandhana Goala (supra) where the original Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules was declared to be discriminatory, was cured through the amendment of the Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 18 w.e.f 21.3.1997. When the amended provisions was then judicially examined, it was observed in Bhanumati Ghosh vs. State of Assam reported in 2015 (4) GLT 370 that the earlier defect and infirmity found in Bandhana Goala (supra) was cured. Therefore it is submitted that Bandhana Goala (supra) has no application now, to decide the validity of the impugned ejectment since Rule 18(2) was amended and the amended Rule applies to all category of Govt. land. 5.2 The respondents contend that since Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 18 is substituted by amendment w.e.f. 21.3.1997, recourse to summary eviction from Govt. Therefore it is submitted that Bandhana Goala (supra) has no application now, to decide the validity of the impugned ejectment since Rule 18(2) was amended and the amended Rule applies to all category of Govt. land. 5.2 The respondents contend that since Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 18 is substituted by amendment w.e.f. 21.3.1997, recourse to summary eviction from Govt. land whether roadside or otherwise, is permitted as the occupiers have not acquired the right of a proprietor, landholder or settlement holder. Moreover bona fide claim of title is not involved in the present cases. 5.3 According to the respondents, the recourse to the summary proceeding under Rule 18(2) for eviction of unauthorized occupants is the correct mechanism and the Public Premises Eviction Act is not attracted as the process does not involve any public premises. 5.4 Questioning the logic of the claim to adverse possession, the learned Govt. advocate submits that Article 111 of Part-IX of the Limitation Act is applicable only for instituting suits and the said provision can have no bearing for ejectment process, under Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules. NATURE OF OCCUPIED ARE 6. Before proceeding any further, it would be appropriate at this stage to notice the character of the land as claimed by the petitioners and their actual status in the Government records, to determine whether the petitioners have any legitimate rights over those areas. 7.1 Deben Das and his 3 sons in WP(C) No. 4250/2009 are occupying land measuring 46B, 3K, 11L. Status of the land as contended by the petitioner Actual status of the land as per Govt. Record 5B, 2K, 3L was purchased from Akharu Boro and Boloram Boro vide deed No. 2921 dated 30.3.1981 The recorded Rayats are Raghunandan Sah and Shyamananda Prahlad. 18B, 11L was purchased from Akharu Boro vide deed No.2920 dated 30.3.1981 Akharu Boro is the recorded Rayat 10B, 8L was purchased from Basudev Sahani vide unregistered deed dated 27.12.1996 Faguni Goala is the recorded Rayat 9B, 16L was purchased from Basudev Sahani vide unregistered deed dated 27.12.1996 Boloram is the tenant 3B, 2K, 14L was purchased from Basudev Sahani vide unregistered deed dated 27.12.1996 Baliram Goala is the tenant 7.2 What is reflected from the above chart is that brick kiln operators have illegally purchased lands from those who are occupancy tenants (Rayat) or actual cultivators. In fact, few of the vendors are not even the recorded tenant. Three of the transactions are through unregistered deeds and the so called seller is Basudev Sahani whereas the recorded (Rayat) are some other persons. Thus through these illegal transaction, no legal right could be acquired and hence the occupation of the area in our assessment, is neither through the lawful vendor or through legitimate deeds. 8. The 2 petitioners Rishi Dev Rai & Surendra Rai in WP(C) No. 4251/2009 are occupying land measuring 36B, 3K, 3L. This is Govt. land is evident from the fact that the petitioners, had applied for settlement of the land before the Secretary, Revenue Department on 28.3.1986 (Annexure-9 of the writ petition). 9.1 Raj Kishore Ray as the petitioner in WP(C) No. 4252/2009 is occupying land measuring 26B, 3K, 17L. Status of the land as contended by the petitioner Actual status of the land as per Govt. Record Claiming possessory right over a plot of land measuring 15B, 10L on the basis of an unregistered lease deed with one Birendra Kumar Kalita The possessory right of the aforesaid plot was purchased by Birendra Kalita from one Narayan Prasad Goenka vide registered deed dated 24.7.1982 9.2 The transaction here is through unregistered deed and this can’t transfer any legal right to the occupier. Moreover, when possessory right is transferred, it is clear enough that the vendor Birendra Kalita doesn’t have any patta right or proprietorial right and hence the petitioner can’t derive any legal authority through such illegal transaction. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 10. From above, it is apparent that none of the petitioners are proprietor, landholder or settlement holder. They are occupying land without any legal authority with the help of some unauthorized deeds. The concerned occupancy tenant (Rayat) had no authority to sell his limited cultivation rights since Section 8 of the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971 provides that recorded Rayat can have a right of transfer in respect of his holding, only with prior permission of the Government. A notice of such transfer shall be served on the landlord in the manner prescribed. Further an occupancy tenant shall not transfer his land to a non-agriculturist. In the instant case, there is gross violation of Section 8 and hence the petitioners being non cultivators, are nothing but illegal encroachers. The occupied area is Govt. A notice of such transfer shall be served on the landlord in the manner prescribed. Further an occupancy tenant shall not transfer his land to a non-agriculturist. In the instant case, there is gross violation of Section 8 and hence the petitioners being non cultivators, are nothing but illegal encroachers. The occupied area is Govt. land and the brick kiln operators in our opinion have no bona fide claim over such land. 11. Following the amendment of Rule 18(2) w.e.f. 29.3.1977, all category of Govt. land is covered by the amended provisions. The earlier decision in Bandhana Goala (supra) is inapplicable now since the defects in the old Rule is now cured as was observed in Bhanumati Ghosh (supra). Thus we find no infirmity with the procedure initiated against the encroachers of valuable assets of the State. 12. The Rule 18(2) of the ALRR, 1986 empowers the Deputy Commissioner to eject those, who have not acquired right of a proprietor, landholder or settlement holder. Admittedly, the petitioners are not the proprietor, landholder or settlement holder of the occupied area and therefore no legal right is noticed in their favour. 13. Following the amendment in 29.3.1977, the Rule 18 reads as under :- “Rule 18(1) - Subject as hereinafter provided, the Deputy Commissioner may eject any person from land over which no person has acquired the rights of a proprietor, landholder or settlement holder” “Rule 18(2) - When such person has entered into possession of Government khas land, or waste land or estate over which no person has acquired the right to a proprietor, land holder or settlement holder or any land that has previously been reserved roads or roadside land or for the grazing of village cattle or for other public purposes, or has entered into possession of land from which he has been excluded by general or special orders and when further, there is no bona-fide claim of right involved he may be ejected or ordered to vacate the land forthwith and the Deputy Commissioner may sell, confiscate or destroy any crop raised, or any building or other construction erected without authority on the land” 14. In view of the changed law it is immaterial that the land in question are not earmarked for road or is roadside land or reserved for the public purpose since, the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations (Amendment) Rule, 1997, the Rule 18(2) was amended, making it applicable for all kinds Govt. khas land or waste land and estate. 15. Here we are looking at situations where no adjudication of any complex question of possessory right or title of the occupiers is involved. Undoubtedly the lands in question are Govt. land or ceiling surplus land which vests on the Government. The petitioners have not been allowed by the Government to occupy the Govt. land. The assertion of the title on the basis of illegal and unauthorized transaction are not acceptable since such claim has no substance. Therefore in our considered view Rule 18(2) is applicable and the action of the State is consistent with the settled legal position. 16. The Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971 is not attracted in the instant case since the said Act was enacted to regulate the relations of landlord and tenant in the temporally settled areas of Assam and the definition of landlord under Section 3(7), means a person immediately under whom, a tenant holds but does not include any Government. The petitioners as brick kiln operators, are ineligible in our view for any protection under this Act. 17. Moreover we do not find that the Assam Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 is applicable in the instant case since Section 2(c) of the Act defines public premises as any premises belonging to or taken on lease, hire or requisitioned by or on behalf of the State Government, the Assam State Electricity Board, the Assam State Road Transport Corporation or any Public Section Undertaking owned or sponsored by the State Government and here the petitioners are not occupying public premises but they are unauthorizedly occupying Govt. lands. Therefore this issue is answered against the petitioners. 18. The principle of adverse possession enunciated in Article 111 of Part IX of the Limitation Act can’t help the petitioners here as the Govt. hasn’t filed a suit for eviction. Therefore no relief can be granted to the encroachers on this plea. 19. The petitioners here are encroaching over vast tract of scarce Govt. 18. The principle of adverse possession enunciated in Article 111 of Part IX of the Limitation Act can’t help the petitioners here as the Govt. hasn’t filed a suit for eviction. Therefore no relief can be granted to the encroachers on this plea. 19. The petitioners here are encroaching over vast tract of scarce Govt. land in Chandrapur area which is quickly developing through expansion of the Guwahati city. Operation of brick kilns in areas where new township is emerging is hardly desirable as these assets can definitely be put to more productive public use instead of benefiting a few individuals. 20. We find from the litigation history on the concerned land that direction was issued 21 years earlier on 13.6.1994 in the Civil Rule No. 815 of 1989 to close down all brick kilns in the area on account of adverse pollution impact. Thereafter operation for only one brick kiln operator was allowed on 9.11.1994 in the Review Application No.36 of 1994 as he was issued the NOC by the Pollution Control Board. But what can’t now be ignored is the fast growing satellite township and also the illegitimacy of the occupation by the brick kiln operators, who are exploiting scarce Govt. land, for personal profit. The authorities have repeatedly tried to clear the area of the encroachers but were thwarted by stay orders obtained by the brick kiln operators. These factors convince us that occupied area should be cleared of encroachers, in larger public interest. 21. It is relevant to note that the occupied 46 Bigha, 2 Katha, 2 Lecha area of Deben Das and his 3 sons is ceiling surplus land and their vendors had no legal authority to sale such land to the current occupiers. Likewise, the 26 Bigha, 3 Katha, 17 Lechas occupied by Raj Kishore Ray is also ceiling surplus land. Such land vest on the Government and the petitioners have no legitimate right over those occupied area. In so far as the 43 Bigha, 3 Katha, 13 Lechas under occupation of Rishi Dev Rani, the area is admittedly Govt. land since the occupier himself has stated that he has applied for settlement. Hence the impugned ejectment is not from any private land but the entire occupied area is Govt. land where none of the petitioners could establish any legal right. land since the occupier himself has stated that he has applied for settlement. Hence the impugned ejectment is not from any private land but the entire occupied area is Govt. land where none of the petitioners could establish any legal right. The total area occupied by the petitioners measures about 110 Bigha, 9 Katha and 32 Lechas and few brick kiln operators are exploiting this vast area for last many years for personal profit. This can’t surely be encouraged when various public needs are unfulfilled for want of land. 22. The available assets being scarce should be utilized for public good and interest of individuals can’t override the public necessity. Petitioners can’t also be categorised as those, who deserve settlement of Govt. land. Moreover under the Govt. land policy, only restricted right for lesser area and limited term is conceived for brick kiln operators. But the petitioners here have already secured much more than what anyone is entitled, under the land policy of the State. Therefore we do not see any equitable right for the petitioners in these cases. 23. In view of above, no infirmity is noticed in the process of ejectment of the encroachers under Rule 18(2) in these cases. Therefore the writ petitions are dismissed with direction to the State authorities to forthwith complete the ejectment exercise from Govt. land. It is ordered accordingly. The interim orders are thus vacated to facilitate the process.