JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Nath, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is the Tinsukia Bari Masjid and Madrassa Committee and they were aggrieved by rule 18(2) and 18(3) notice under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation dated 10.09.2007, issued under the signature of the SDO(Civil), Tinsukia, Sadar. The said notice was assailed by the writ petitioner before the Assam Board of Revenue, resulting in Case No.156 RA(TIN)/07. By the judgment and order dated 11.10.2010 in the said revenue appeal, the learned Revenue Board while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner, had also provided that at the time of eviction, the Deputy Commissioner will not dismantle the construction of the building, but shall cause a vacation of the building by the tenants and others, who are occupying it. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner without going into the merit and demerit of the judgment and order of the learned Board of Revenue, submits that this writ petition is preferred on a narrow issue to the extent as to whether the notice under Rule 18(2) and 18(3) was issued in a proper manner. The learned counsel brings it to the notice of the Court that the said notices begins with the sentence that it came to the knowledge from the report of the Circle Officer that the petitioner is illegally occupying the Government land. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said report of the Circle Officer is in fact a report of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia dated 13.08.2007. It is stated that as the basis of the notice under Rule 18(2) and 18(3) is the said report of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, therefore, the procedure, which was adopted in arriving at the said report is also relevant. 4. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner refers to paragraph-2 of the report dated 13.08.2007, which states that the plot of land measuring 1K-17L as per the revenue records is found to be Government land reserved for Madrassa school. The petitioner being already a Madrassa school in the concerned land, claims that they have a legal right to be considered for an allotment of the said land, inasmuch as, although the land is a Government land, but the same is reserved for Madrassa school. The petitioner being already a Madrassa school in the concerned land, claims that they have a legal right to be considered for an allotment of the said land, inasmuch as, although the land is a Government land, but the same is reserved for Madrassa school. The learned counsel for the petitioner also brings it to the notice of this Court that when the enquiry was made by the Additional Deputy Commissioner on 06.08.2007 at 4 p.m, while visiting the premises of the petitioner, neither the President nor the Secretary were found. The enquiring authority on the other hand, found one person, who claimed to be one of the members of the Committee who accordingly received the notice, requiring the appearance of the President and the Secretary of the Madrassa Committee before the Additional Deputy Commissioner for explaining their case. 5. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said person, who claimed to be one of the members of the Committee, is a person not known to the petitioner and therefore, if any notice for appearance was served on the said person, the said service cannot be deemed to be an appropriate service under the law. it is also stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that had the adequate opportunity been given to the President and Secretary of the petitioner Madrassa Committee, they could have produced the appropriate materials, which would have established some kind of a legal right in their favour. 6. From the record of the proceedings made available as well as from the proceeding held before the learned Assam Board of Revenue, it does not appear that the aforesaid question as to whether the notice for appearance was served to the petitioner or not was taken into consideration. 7. In view of the above, as agreed by the respective parties, this Court deems it appropriate that the interest of justice would be met if the matter is remanded back to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia for giving an appropriate hearing to the President and Secretary of the petitioner Madrassa Committee to establish their case as to whether they have any subsisting legal right to occupy the Government land in question. Upon such opportunity being given, if the Additional Deputy Commissioner is of the view that the members of the petitioner Madrassa Committee has some kind of a legal right, the Additional Deputy Commissioner would record the same. On the other hand, if upon giving the adequate opportunity and examining the materials that the President and Secretary of the petitioner Madrassa Committee may produce, the Additional Deputy Commissioner is of the view that the petitioner Committee has no such legal right, the Additional Deputy Commissioner would be at liberty to submit an appropriate report on the same. On the said report being submitted, the authority issuing the notice under Rule-18(2) and 18(3) under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, would act accordingly. 8. In terms of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia shall issue a notice to the President and Secretary of the petitioner Madrassa Committee requiring them to appear on a given date and upon such opportunity being given, the President and Secretary shall appear before the Additional Deputy Commissioner and produce all the relevant materials that they may have in order to substantiate their claim. The Additional Deputy Commissioner shall accordingly pass an appropriate order either recognizing or rejecting the claim of the petitioner Madrassa Committee and accordingly submit a report thereof for the authorities to issue the required notice under Rule 18(2) and 18(3) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. 9. As the petitioner was protected by an interim order of this Court dated 27.05.2011, they will continue to be covered by the said interim order till the Additional Deputy Commissioner passes his order. It is provided that the aforesaid exercise shall be carried out and completed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 10. A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. D. Nath, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate in order to transmit the same to the Additional Deputy Commissioner for doing the needful.