JUDGMENT : Prasanta Kumar Deka, J.(Oral) Heard Mr. PK Deka, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants/ plaintiffs and Mr. CKS Baruah, learned Government Advocate, Assam, appearing on behalf of the State of Assam. 2. The appellants are plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 41/1994 filed for declaration of right, title and interest, confirmation of possession and for permanent injunction against the defendants/respondents. It is the case of the plaintiffs/appellants that they have been occupying the suit land for more than 30 years by paying touzi fees to the Government. The deceased-husband of the plaintiff/appellant No. 1 and the plaintiff/respondent No. 2 took steps by filing various petition for settlement of the suit land in their favour and during the pendency of the process of settlement, the Sub-Divisional Officer (C) Hojai issued notices to the plaintiffs/appellants under Rule 18 (2) of the Settlement Rules under the Encroachment Case No. 3/90-91. 3. Being aggrieved, they preferred an appeal before the Assam Board of Revenue, which directed the SDO (C), Hojai for consideration of the case of the plaintiff/appellants afresh. Yet the defendant/ respondents again issued notice under Rule 18 (2) of the Settlement Rules vide Misc. Case No. 21/94-95 and on receipt of the said notice, the plaintiffs/appellants submitted another application against the ejectment but no reply has been received. Finding no alternative, they moved a writ petition before this court which was registered as Civil Rule No. 2414/94 and this court was pleased to issue Rule and further directed the defendants/respondents to consider the claim of the plaintiffs. In pursuance of the said order of this court, the plaintiffs/appellants moved an application on 1.7.1994 before the defendant/respondent No. 2 for disposal of their application for settlement of the suit land but no orders have been passed. The plaintiffs/ appellants have been openly occupying and residing on the suit land since long and thus acquired the right, title and interest over the suit land as well as for confirmation of the possession and for permanent injunction. 4. The defendants/respondents contested the suit by filing written statement. It is the case of the defendants/ respondents that the plot of land measuring 101 Bighas 3 Khatas 8 Lechas under Dag No. 15 of Pachim Dhaniram Pathar Kisam comprising the suit land, is a village grazing reserve land and the plaintiffs/ appellants are the encroachers of the suit land. 4. The defendants/respondents contested the suit by filing written statement. It is the case of the defendants/ respondents that the plot of land measuring 101 Bighas 3 Khatas 8 Lechas under Dag No. 15 of Pachim Dhaniram Pathar Kisam comprising the suit land, is a village grazing reserve land and the plaintiffs/ appellants are the encroachers of the suit land. The village grazing reserve is not open for settlement to any individual and in no way the plaintiffs/ appellants are entitled for settlement. They are encroachers and notice under Rule 18 (2) of the Assam Land Revenue Regulation was issued. The land was allotted to STATFED, Hojai and as such they prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. The defendant/respondent No. 5 submitted the written statement. By way of the said written statement, it is pleaded that 2 Bighas of land under Dag No. 15 of Pachim Dhaniram Pathar Kisam was allotted for construction of godown premises and the possession was delivered to the STATFED on 19.4.1994 by the Circle Officer, Hojai. The said defendant No. 5 constructed the boundary wall and erected bamboo fencing boundary on the other three boundaries and also erected GCI sheet roofed shed for stocking of materials. The plaintiffs/appellants tried to encroach the land of the defendant No. 5 forcibly on 8.7.1994 but failed where after on 19.7.1994 the possession of the land was formally delivered to the said defendant by the revenue authority. 6. On the basis of the pleading, the following issues were framed: " ISSUES 1. Is there any cause of action for the suit? 2. Whether the suit is maintainable? 3. Whether the suit is bad for defect of parties? 4. Whether the suit is hit by Section 154 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation? 5. Whether the suit is barred by principles of waiver, estoppels and acquiescence? 6. Whether the plaintiffs have right, title, interest and possession over the suit land? 7. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree as prayed for? 8. To what relief, if any, the parties are entitled?" The learned trial court delivered the judgment and decree and dismissed the suit with costs. 7. Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs/appellants preferred the Title Appeal No. 27/2001, which was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 16.2.2016. Thereafter, the plaintiffs/appellants has preferred the present second appeal which is taken up for admission today. 8. Mr. 7. Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs/appellants preferred the Title Appeal No. 27/2001, which was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 16.2.2016. Thereafter, the plaintiffs/appellants has preferred the present second appeal which is taken up for admission today. 8. Mr. Deka submits that the courts below failed to consider the submission of the plaintiffs/appellants that an application for settlement of the suit land in their favour was pending and during the pendency of the said petition, the defendants/respondents initiated ejectment process under Rule 18 (2) of the Settlement Rules under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 which is totally illegal. It is also submitted that the ejectment notice which was issued by the SDO (C), Hojai under Rule 18 (2) of the Settlement Rules was set aside by this court and directed the defendants/respondents to consider the settlement of the appellants over the suit land, but no such action was initiated which the learned court below ought to have considered. 9. Mr. Deka further submits that the plaintiffs/appellants on the strength of their hostile possession are entitled for declaration of the right, title and interest over the suit land under the provisions of Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. So, Mr. Deka submits that the appeal is to be admitted as the same involves substantial questions of law to be decided. 10. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and perused the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below. The first appellate court, while deciding the Issue No. 6 discussed the claim of the plaintiffs/appellants with regard to their right, title and interest over the suit land. The plaintiffs/appellants based their claim of the possession of the suit land for more than 30 years by paying touzi bahi revenue. They on their part have admitted in their evidence as well as in the plaint that the suit land is Government land. The first appellate court considering the provision of Section 12 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1986, which gives power to the State to make rules for disposal by way of agreement, lease or otherwise such land of the Government. The first appellate court considering the provision of Section 12 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1986, which gives power to the State to make rules for disposal by way of agreement, lease or otherwise such land of the Government. Rule 16 of the Settlement Rules under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation provides that lease shall be issued on written application only and no person shall enter into the possession of waste land in any area until a lease has been issued to him or a written permission is granted to him by the Deputy Commissioner, pending issue of such lease to enter into possession of the Government waste land. The first appellate court also discussed the provision under Rule 18 (1) whereby the Deputy Commissioner is empowered to evict any person from the land over which no person can acquire the right of proprietor or settlement holder. 11. Finally, the first appellate court came to the finding that no application for settlement was produced by the plaintiffs/appellants to prove that they had applied for settlement of the suit land in their names and during the pendency of the process for settlement, the defendants/respondents had initiated ejectment process against them. Thus, the courts below came to the finding that there was no settlement granted by the Deputy Commissioner nor any written permission has been obtained by the plaintiffs/appellants from the Deputy Commissioner for possession of the Government Land. So, under the provisions of Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, the courts below came to the conclusion that plaintiffs/appellants cannot claim any title over the suit land. As such, the courts below came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs/appellants are encroachers and they are liable to be ejected. 12. The findings of the courts below is a reasoned finding, more so when the plaintiffs/appellants had failed to show on record before the courts below that in pursuance of the order passed by this court in Civil Rule No. 2414/1994, the plaintiffs/appellants had preferred any application for settlement of the suit land in their favour. 13. 12. The findings of the courts below is a reasoned finding, more so when the plaintiffs/appellants had failed to show on record before the courts below that in pursuance of the order passed by this court in Civil Rule No. 2414/1994, the plaintiffs/appellants had preferred any application for settlement of the suit land in their favour. 13. Under the Regulation of 154 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, it has been specifically mentioned that no civil court shall exercise its jurisdiction in any matter regarding ejectment of any person from land over which no person has accrued the right of proprietor, land holder or settlement holder and the disposal of any crop raised or any building or other construction erected without authority on such land. This is a case wherein the plaintiffs/appellants knowing fully well that the land claimed by them is a Government land and the defendants/respondents being the revenue authority had taken steps within the ambit and scope of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 for their ejectment. The plaintiffs/appellants knowing the fact that they had no vested right of proprietor, land holder or settlement holder over the suit land had filed the suit and in such a situation, they are precluded from coming to the civil court asking for relief of their declaration of their right, title and interest and possession over the suit land. 14. The courts below instead of rejecting the claim of the plaintiffs/appellants at the threshold allowed the suit to continue and decided the various issues framed, based on the pleadings of the parties to the suit and finally came to the finding within the parameters of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation 1886 that the plaintiffs/appellants had no right, title and interest on the suit land though there is a specific bar in entering into the matter by the civil court as raised by the plaintiffs/appellants. Accordingly, this court finds no merit in this second appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.