JUDGMENT : This second appeal by the plaintiff is against the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2007, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur in Title Appeal No.24/2006, whereby the learned Civil Judge dismissed the appeal as well as the suit of the plaintiff, concurring with the findings of the learned Munsiff. 2. The second appeal was admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law: a. Whether the plaintiff/appellant being a member of the scheduled caste community are entitled to get protection under Section 160 and Section 162 of the Assam Land Revenue Regulation, 1885 (as amended)? b. Whether the plaintiff/appellant is entitled to get settlement under Clause 16 of the Special provision for scheduled castes and schedule tribe of the Government of Assam land policy, 1989? 3. Brief facts of the case leading to the present second appeal may be stated thus:, the appellant as plaintiff filed the Title Suit No.24/2004 for declaration of right, title, interest and permanent injunction. The pleaded case of the plaintiff was that he had been possessing 2 kathas of Government land out of the 16 bigha, 4 katha and 17 lechas of land under Dag No.70, within the Chariduar tribal belt area. The defendants attempted to evict the plaintiff from the suit land on various occasions but he continued to be in possession and thereby acquired right title and interest by adverse possession. The defendant No.3 initiated an eviction proceeding against him vide CDC/16/20/2-04/295, dated 20.02.2004 and issued notice. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking declaration of his right title and interest over the suit land and injunction both prohibitory as well as mandatory. 4. The pleaded case of the defendant was that the plaintiff was an encroacher on the government land and he illegally encroached the suit land in the year 2001. Eviction proceeding was initiated as per law, vide Eviction Case No.1/2001, to evict the plaintiff being an illegal encroacher of Govt. land. It was also stated that the plaintiff had no right title and interest over the suit land and the suit was not maintainable. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, learned Munsiff framed the following issues: 1. Whether there is any cause of action for the suit? 2. Whether the suit is maintainable? 3. Whether the suit is barred by law? 4. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, learned Munsiff framed the following issues: 1. Whether there is any cause of action for the suit? 2. Whether the suit is maintainable? 3. Whether the suit is barred by law? 4. Whether the plaintiff acquired right, title and interest over the suit land by way of adverse possession? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for? 6. To what relief/relief(s) the parties are entitled to? 6. The plaintiff examined 6 (six) witnesses, however, the defendants did not adduce any evidence. After hearing the parties, learned Munsiff dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 7. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff, the plaintiff preferred the appeal before the learned Civil Judge which was also dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree. Hence the present second appeal. 8. Mr. A.K. Sarkar, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. K. Phukan, learned Govt. advocate, Assam were heard. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the plaintiff being a person belonging to schedule caste, falls within the category of protected class as contemplated in Section 160 of the Assam Land Revenue Regulation (for short Regulation), and was eligible to get-settlement of land within the tribal belt. However, both the Courts below dismissed the suit of the plaintiff with an erroneous finding that the plaintiff did not belong to the class protected under Section 160 of the Assam Land Revenue Regulation. Ms. Phukan, learned Govt. advocate contended, that in view of the dispute involved in the suit and the relief claimed, the substantial question of law famed herein are not at all a substantial question having bearing on the dispute and the relief sought therein. It was also contended by the learned Govt. advocate that the substantial question as famed, is only academic having no role in deciding the lis. Further contention of the learned Govt. advocate was that concurrent finding of both the Courts below regarding title of the plaintiff over the suit land by adverse possession was essentially a finding of fact and therefore, this Court in second appeal cannot interfere with such finding of facts. 10. Admittedly, the suit land is Government land. Further contention of the learned Govt. advocate was that concurrent finding of both the Courts below regarding title of the plaintiff over the suit land by adverse possession was essentially a finding of fact and therefore, this Court in second appeal cannot interfere with such finding of facts. 10. Admittedly, the suit land is Government land. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his right tile and interest over the suit land, on the basis of adverse possession and also for prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendants from evicting the plaintiff from the suit land as well as alternative relief of mandatory injunction in the form of direction to the defendants to give settlement of the suit land to the plaintiff. The plaintiff pleaded in his plaint and also adduced evidence, that he applied for allotment of the suit land before the authorities, which was pending disposal and during pendency of his prayer for settlement, the eviction notice was issued. On appreciation of the pleadings and evidence, both the Courts below came to concurrent finding that the plaintiff having admitted the paramount title of the Government over the suit land, there was no question of adverse possession, inasmuch as, the plaintiff did not deny the title of the Government. The plaintiff having failed to establish his title over the suit land by adverse possession, both the Courts below dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Whether the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land ripen into title by adverse possession was basically a finding of fact. The above factual findings apparently having not suffered from any perversity is obviously not amenable to second appeal and therefore, this Court has to accept the submission of the learned Govt. advocate. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant referring to the provisions of Section 160, 161 & 162 of the Assam Land Revenue Regulations as well as the land policy of the Government, submitted that the plaintiff ought to have given settlement of the suit land, as he was a person falling in the protected class as contemplated in Section 160 of the Assam Land Revenue Regulations. 12. Section 160, 161 & 162 reads as under: ........... 160. 12. Section 160, 161 & 162 reads as under: ........... 160. Protection of certain classes - (1) Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, the [(Substituted for the word “Provincial” by Adaptation of Law Order, 1950) State] Government may adopt such measures as it deems fit for the protection of these classes who on account of their primitive condition and lack of education or material advantages are incapable of looking after their welfare in so far as such welfare depends upon their having sufficient land for their maintenance. (2) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify the classes of people whom it considers entitled to protection by such measures as aforesaid. 161. Constitution of compact areas.- The protective measures may include the constitution of compact areas, in regions predominantly peopled by the classes of people notified under the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 160, into belts or blocks. The boundaries of the areas so constituted shall as far as possible coincide with mauza boundaries or be otherwise easily distinguishable. 162. Extension of Chapter X to such Areas- The State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, direct that the provisions of this Chapter shall apply to the areas, or any of the areas, constituted into belts or blocks under the provisions of Section 161. On such application, the disposal of land by lease for ordinary cultivation, the nature and extent for rights conveyed by annual or periodic lease, the termination or forfeiture of such rights, the ejectment of persons in occupation who have no valid right in the land, the management or letting out in farm of land in certain circumstances by the Deputy Commissioner, and other allied or connected matters shall so far as possible, be Governed by the provisions of this Chapter and the rules made thereunder. (2) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law, usage, contract or agreement, no person shall acquire or posses by transfer, exchange, lease, agreement or settlement any land in any area or areas constituted into belts or blocks in contravention of the provisions of Sub-section (1): [Inserted vide the Assam Land & Revenue Regulation (Amendment) Act, 101 (Presidents Act No. 2 of 1981)] (Provided that nothing contained in this chapter or in the rules made thereunder, shall effect any transfer by way of a mortage in favour of any nationalised bank, a co-operative Society Registered under the Assam Cooperative Society Act 1949 (Assam Act I of 1950) or such other financing institution as may be approved by the State Government) (3) From and after the commencement of the Assam Land Revenue and Regulation (Amendment) Act, 1964, no document evidencing any transaction for acquisition or possession of any land by way of transfer, exchange, lease agreement or settlement shall be registered under the Indian Registration Act 1908, if it appears to the registering authority that the transaction has been effected in contravention of the provisions of Sub Section (2). (4) The State Government may in the like manner, direct that provisions of this chapter shall cease to apply to any area or areas or portions of any area, or areas, to which they have been applied under the provisions of Sub-Section (1). (5) The application of the provisions of this chapter to any area as aforesaid will not affect: (a) Land settled for special cultivation or purposes ancillary to special cultivation (including grants made for tea cultivation). (b) Lakheraj, nisfkherj or special estate settled with non-cultivators for their maintenance, which land or estate and the rights and interests therein shall continue to be governed by the provisions for the forgoing chapters of the Regulation and the rules made thereunder. ….............. 13. Section 160 of the Assam Land Revenue Regulation provides for protection of certain classes of under privileged and backward categories of people, who were incapable of protecting their rights for lack of education, primitive condition etc., and Section 161 provides for taking protective measures by constituting protected belts and blocks in order to protect the land rights of such classes of people. The learned counsel for the appellant referring to a notification of the Govt. The learned counsel for the appellant referring to a notification of the Govt. of Assam dated 15.12.1947, contended that the person belonging to Schedule Caste were also included in the protected class as contemplated in Section 160 of the Regulation, and the plaintiff being a person belonging to Schedule Caste falling in the special class as contemplated under Section 160 of the Regulation, was eligible to get settlement of land within the tribunal belt and blocks constituted under Section 161 of the Assam Land Revenue Regulation Act. 14. What is important to note is that Chapter-10 of the Assam Land Revenue Regulation provides for constitution of belt and block for protection of the backward classes. It is no doubt true that while giving settlement of land in the belt and block, provision of Section 163 of the Regulation has to be followed. However, right over the Government land has to be acquired under settlement rules framed under the Assam Land Revenue Regulation. Admittedly, the plaintiff was occupying a government land and he was not yet given the settlement of the land. It is to be borne in mind, that eligibility and right are not the same thing. One may satisfy the eligibility criteria for being a person of protected class, but the same may not be sufficient for getting settlement of the Govt. land in the belt and block, which is also circumscribed by other factors laid down in the Regulation and settlement rules. It is the settled position of law, that unless a person acquires any right title or interest over a government land, under the Assam Land Revenue Regulations and settlement rules framed thereunder, one cannot claim any right over the Government land merely because of his long possession or for being a person of protected classes. 15. Rule 15 of Assam Land Revenue Regulation provides that no person shall have any right to settlement merely because he is in occupation of land not included in any lease granted by the State Government either to himself or to any other person. Therefore, by merely possessing a Govt. land, one cannot acquire any right to get settlement over the land. Settlement or allotment of the Govt. land has to be made by the authority concerned as per settlement rules. The Apex Court in the case of State of Assam and Ors Vs. Therefore, by merely possessing a Govt. land, one cannot acquire any right to get settlement over the land. Settlement or allotment of the Govt. land has to be made by the authority concerned as per settlement rules. The Apex Court in the case of State of Assam and Ors Vs. Radha Kanoo (Smti) and Ors., 1997 2 GLT (SC) 35; held that:- “(4) Rule 16 of the Rules framed under the Regulation prescribes that lease shall be issued on written application only, and no person shall enter into possession of wasteland in any area until a lease has been issued to him or otherwise a written permission by deputy Commissioner has been granted to him, pending issue of such lease, to enter into possession. Rule 17 imposes liability to pay revenue on such settlement Rule 17-A gives power to the Deputy Commissioner to increase or reduce at any time, either on an application or of his own, the revenue in proportion to the change in area of the lease as a result of gain by alluvion or by dereliction of a river, or by diluvion, during the currency of the settlement. In other words, right of entry into possession of Government land is hedged with a written lease or permission by Deputy Commissioner. They are entitled to pay revenue in terms of lease or permission. Any person who enters into possession otherwise than pursuant to Rule 16 is an encroacher into Government vacant land.” 16. When admittedly the plaintiff claimed to have possessed the Government land and the land was not allotted or settled with him, under the Regulation and settlement rules, no right or title stood vested on the plaintiff on the basis of mere possession. Even if the plaintiff was a person falling in the special class as contemplated in Section 160 of the Regulation, unless the Govt. land is settled or allotted to him as per the settlement rules, he cannot claim any right or title thereon. One cannot acquire any right or title over the Government land, merely, because of his being a person belonging to protected category. 17. land is settled or allotted to him as per the settlement rules, he cannot claim any right or title thereon. One cannot acquire any right or title over the Government land, merely, because of his being a person belonging to protected category. 17. In view of the above facts and circumstances, whether the plaintiff was protected under Section 160 or 161 of the Assam Land Revenue Regulation Act, or entitled to settlement of land, as per the Government policy appears to be totally academic, so far the present lis is concerned. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument or held that the plaintiff falls in the special category of person as contemplated under Section 160 or 162 of the Regulation, or is entitled for special consideration under the Government land policy, the same itself does not confer any title on the plaintiff to occupy a government land unless the land is settled or allotted to him as per the procedure prescribed in the Assam Land Revenue Regulations. When admittedly the land was not allotted or settled with the plaintiff and the plea of adverse possession was also rejected by both the Courts below by concurrent finding, the substantial question of law framed in the appeal, in my view are purely academic and cannot effect the concurrent finding of the Courts below as to the status and title of the plaintiff. Therefore, the substantial question of law are answered accordingly. 18. As indicated above that the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, on the basis of which the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed is not amenable to second appeal, this second appeal appears to have no merit and accordingly dismissed. 19. Send back the LCR.