JUDGMENT : A.S. BOPANNA, J. 1. Heard Mr. R.C. Saikia, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for all the respondents. 2. The appellants are before this Court assailing the order dated 21.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.1265/2011. The appellants herein claiming to be aggrieved by the action of the respondents herein with the proposal dated 20.02.2010 to allot 1 Katha 10 Lechas of land in favour of Dhubri District Museum in Dag No.1377 was before the learned Single Judge assailing the action of the respondents. The learned Single Judge having considered the rival contentions noted that through the said proposal, which was approved for the grant of land to Dhubri District Museum, allotment granted was restricted only to the extent of 1 Katha 10 Lechas out of the total extent measuring 4 Kathas 10 Lechas in Dag No.1377 and in that light, the learned Single Judge being of the opinion that the appellants herein cannot make out any grievance with regard to such proposal for allotment of land to the Dhubri District Museum had disposed of the writ petition and vacated the interim order, which had been granted earlier. It is in that light, the appellant herein, who were the writ petitioners, are before this Court in this intra-Court appeal assailing the said order. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the matter in its correct perspective. It is contended that the entire extent of 4 Kathas 10 Lechas in Dag No.1377 is shown against the name of the appellants herein in the Chitha for the surveyed villages. In that light, it is contended that in such circumstance, the land which is shown against the name of the appellants herein and which is in possession of the appellants could not have been allotted in favour of any other entity including the Dhubri District Museum. In order to contend that pursuant to such indication in the revenue records, the appellants are also in possession and enjoyment of the land have sought to rely on the documents, which are annexed with the writ petition as Annexures-1 to 7 thereof. In order to contend that pursuant to such indication in the revenue records, the appellants are also in possession and enjoyment of the land have sought to rely on the documents, which are annexed with the writ petition as Annexures-1 to 7 thereof. In that regard, it is contended that as far back as in the year 1965, the Industries Department had recognized the role of the appellants herein and in that light, the appellants were providing training to ladies in knitting and embroidery and for the said purpose, machines were also procured. Hence, he contends that in such situation when the appellants have continued to remain in possession and the revenue record also indicates the name of the appellants, the action taken by the respondents ought not to have been accepted by the learned Single Judge. 4. The learned Senior Government Advocate would, however, seek to controvert the contention as put forth by the learned counsel for the appellants. It is his contention that though such indication is made in the Chitha, there is no document to indicate that the land in fact was allotted in favour of the appellants and pursuant to the same such entry has been made. He, therefore, contends that in such circumstance even assuming for a moment that the appellants are in possession of the land, such possession can only be construed to the portion thereof where the building is situated and in such circumstance when action was taken by the respondents to allot only a portion of the vacant land, which was available therein, the appellants cannot make out any grievance. In fact the learned Senior Government Advocate at the time of hearing of this appeal has sought to rely on a copy of the Chitha wherein presently to the extent of 1 Katha 17 Lechas the land in Dag No.1376 is shown as "PWD". Hence, he contends that in a circumstance where only in respect of Dag No.1377, the name of the Ladies Club is shown in the remarks column and the name of the Pattadar is shown as Government, meaning thereby that the land belongs to the Government, the appellants cannot raise any grievance. Hence, he contends that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is justified and does not call for interference. 5. Hence, he contends that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is justified and does not call for interference. 5. Having taken note of the rival contentions and also the consideration as made by the learned Single Judge, the only aspect that arises for consideration is as to whether the grievance as put forth by the appellants that a portion of the land measuring 1 Katha 10 Lechas in Dag No.1377 could not have been allotted to the Dhubri District Museum without either divesting the appellants from the land in question or taking out any proceedings in accordance with law is justified. To that extent, at the outset a perusal of the Chitha for the Surveyed Villages (Annexure-2) would indicate that in respect of Dag No.1377, an area of 4 Kathas 10 Lechas is indicated. It is no doubt true that the name of the Government is indicated as the Pattadar. In the remarks column, the name of the appellants is indicated against the entire extent without bifurcating. In a matter of the present circumstance, even if the contention of the respondents at this juncture that there is no allotment order in favour of the appellants is taken into consideration, even in that circumstance when the name of the Government is shown as the Pattadar and when the remarks column indicates the name of the Ladies Club against the entire extent is shown therein, the respondents would have to follow the due process of law either to evict the appellants if their occupation is unauthorised or to divest a portion even to allot that portion of the said land to any other authority more particularly when the other documents indicate that the appellant Ladies Club was carrying out its activities in that land. 6. In that circumstance, though there is no material available on record to indicate that the land has in fact been allotted in favour of the appellants by a specific allotment order, the documents which are produced along with the writ petition, which are also part of the writ appeal, indicate that the Office of the Assistant Director of Cottage Industries as far back as on 10.03.1965 had addressed a communication to the Secretary of the appellants relating to allotment of Japanese Knitting Machines. If that be the position, prima facie, the same indicates that even if not through an order of allotment, the appellants had been in possession of the property in question. If that be so, the respondents are required to follow the due process, look into the records and take action in accordance with law after providing opportunity in accordance with law. Even if no right is there on the appellants to continue to possess the land, the respondents are to take possession of the land from the appellants in accordance with law before the same is allotted to any other entity, though it be a portion of the land. Therefore, until such procedure is followed by the respondents in accordance with law, the allotment even if made cannot be given effect by forcibly taking possession of any portion of the land. Therefore, to that extent, we modify the order passed by the learned Single Judge to indicate that the respondents would not be entitled to dispossess the appellants from any portion of the land measuring 4 Kathas 10 Lechas in Dag No.1377 in Dhubri Town without following the due process of law. For the present, we do not propose to set aside the proposal but the allotment dated 20.02.2010 in favour of the Dhubri District Museum can be given effect and the possession, if any, in respect of the land can be given to them only after taking steps and if the land is recovered from the appellants in accordance with law. Until such time, the possession of the appellants shall stand protected. 7. In terms thereof, the appeal stands disposed of.