ORDER : The instant intra-court appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 29.06.2022 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.1657 of 2008 by which the writ petition has been dismissed declining to interfere with the order dated 07.03.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan) Division, Chaibasa in Misc. Revision No.4/08 affirming the order dated 08.02.2007 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum East passed in Misc. Appeal No.36 of 2006-07 by which the order dated 22.11.2005 passed by the D.C.L.R., Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur, settling a piece of land in Mouza-Ghorabandha, Thana No.1195, Khata No.121, Plot No.975, Area – 0.05 acre in favour of the petitioner was reversed. 2. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceeding, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under :- It is the case of the writ petitioner that he is residing in Jamshedpur for last 35 years and constructed a house in Plot No.975, Khata No.121, Area- 5 decimals in Village – Ghorabandha, District- East Singhbhum. The petitioner’s name has also been entered into voter list of Jugsalai assembly in the year 1975 and since then is continuing. He belongs to backward class and filed an application before the Circle Officer, Jamshdepur to settle the land of Plot No.975, Khata No.121, Area-5 decimals in Village- Ghorabandha, District- East Singhbhum in his favour. Thereafter, the Circle Officer, Jamshedpur invited the objection and the original respondent No.6, Smt. Pano Mahatani, who was already in possession of 2.50 Acres of land, only to harass the petitioner filed an objection. During pendency of the writ petition, Smt. Pano Mahatani, W/o Late Karna Mahato died leaving behind her son Ashok Mahato and her daughter Smt. Baisakhi Mahatani, who were substituted on record of this writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that earlier a proceeding was initiated against him under Public Land Encroachment Act in the High Court in which direction was passed upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for alternative arrangement by settlement. It is the case of the petitioner that earlier a proceeding was initiated against him under Public Land Encroachment Act in the High Court in which direction was passed upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for alternative arrangement by settlement. The Circle Officer, Jamshdepur in its order dated 22.11.2005 passed in Settlement Case No.15/2005-2006 had recorded that the High Court of Jharkhand had directed that after removal of the Khatal, the State should consider the alternative arrangement for concerned persons and thus the Circle Officer, Jamshedpur after inviting objection had recommended to settle the land with the petitioner. Smt. Pano Mahatani filed appeal being Misc. Appeal No.36/2006-07 before the Deputy Commissioner, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum against the order passed by the Circle Officer dated 22.11.2005. The Deputy Commissioner, vide its order dated 08.02.2007 in Misc. Appeal No.36/2006-07, set aside the order dated 22.11.2005 passed by the Circle Officer. Against the aforesaid order of the Deputy Commissioner, the writ petitioner filed revision before the Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan) Division, Chaibasa by filing Misc. Revision No. 4/2008. The said revision was dismissed vide order dated 07.03.2008 affirming the order passed by Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum East dated 08.02.2007 in Misc. Appeal No.36 of 2006-07. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(C) No.1657 of 2008 challenging the order dated 07.03.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan) Division, Chaibasa in Misc. Revision No.4/08 affirming the order dated 08.02.2007 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum East passed in Misc. Appeal No.36 of 2006-07 by which the order dated 22.11.2005 passed by the Circle Officer, Jamshedpur, has been reversed. The learned Single Judge, after considering the argument advanced on behalf of the parties, has dismissed the writ petition, against which the present intra-court appeal has been preferred. 3. Mr. Dhananjay Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-appellant has submitted that the Circle Officer, while passing the order of settlement vide order dated 22.11.2005, has considered the Government circular as contained in Memo No.4 Kha. Ma. Niti – 101/712-2188 Ra. Dated 12/13.05.1971, by which the concerned authority has been conferred with the power to settle a piece of land in favour of the member of the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Other Backward Communities (Schedule-I), soldiers and the refugee, in a situation when such category of persons were removed from the Government land in course of removal of encroachment. Dated 12/13.05.1971, by which the concerned authority has been conferred with the power to settle a piece of land in favour of the member of the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Other Backward Communities (Schedule-I), soldiers and the refugee, in a situation when such category of persons were removed from the Government land in course of removal of encroachment. The Sub-Divisional Officer has taken into consideration the policy decision and taking into consideration the fact that the writ petitioner was also dispossessed from the Government land in course of removal of encroachment and, as such, for settlement of the petitioner a piece of land was ordered to be settled vide order dated 04.01.2006 by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur which is based upon the report of the Circle Officer. But, the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner, while scrutinizing the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 04.01.2006, reversed the same without taking into consideration the Government circular dated 12/13.05.1971, as contained in Memo No.4 Kha. Ma. Niti – 101/712-2188 Ra, therefore, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant, this aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge in right perspective, rather the learned Single Judge has gone into the stand taken by the State that the writ petitioner has come from the district of Bankura which falls under the jurisdiction of the West Bengal, therefore, he cannot be held entitled for the settlement of the land. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Rakesh Kr. Shahi, learned A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-I, appearing for the respondent-State, has defended the order passed by the learned Single Judge taking the plea that the circular on which the writ petitioner is relying, cannot be said to be a basis for settlement of land in favour of a person who has been found to be encroacher and has been disposed in course of encroachment removal drive since the parent Act, i.e., Public Land Encroachment Act, 2001 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, 2001) does not contain any provision to that effect, rather a provision has been made therein of imposition of penalty as also punishment, depending upon the situation, as would appear from the provision of Section 6(2) of the Act, 2001. Further submission has been made on behalf of the State that the Deputy Commissioner as also the Commissioner has taken into consideration the fact that the writ petitioner was an encroacher, in whose favour no land can be settled. Further consideration has been made about the fact that the writ petitioner has migrated from the district of Bankura located in the State of West Bengal, therefore, he is not entitled for the settlement of land. 5. The fact which is not in dispute in this case is that the writ petitioner has constructed a khatal over the Government land. The concerned competent authority initiated an encroachment removal drive and in course thereof and after fulfilment of statutory requirement, the writ petitioner was removed from the said land. The writ petitioner, thereafter, made an application before the Circle Officer, Parsudih, Jamshedpur for settlement of a piece of land relying upon the circular dated 12/13.05.1971, as contained in Memo No.4 Kha. Ma. Niti – 101/712-2188 Ra. The Sub-Divisional Officer called upon a report from the Circle Officer wherein it has been reported that the writ petitioner is a landless person. The Sub-Divisional Officer has passed an order of settlement of land vide order dated 04.01.2006. The original respondent-Smt. Pano Mahatani, being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, challenged the same before the Deputy Commissioner by filing appeal wherein the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 04.01.2006 passed on the basis of the recommendation of the Circle Officer, has been reversed. Thereafter, the writ petitioner preferred a revision before the Commissioner, Kolhan Division but the revision has been dismissed by affirming the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner, the writ petition has been filed which having been dismissed by the learned Single Judge, the instant appeal has been preferred. 6. The writ petitioner has based his claim by relying upon the circular dated 12/13.05.1971, as contained in Memo No.4 Kha. Ma. Against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner, the writ petition has been filed which having been dismissed by the learned Single Judge, the instant appeal has been preferred. 6. The writ petitioner has based his claim by relying upon the circular dated 12/13.05.1971, as contained in Memo No.4 Kha. Ma. Niti – 101/712-2188 Ra, therefore, the said circular is required to be considered by this Court and accordingly, the same having been scrutinized, this Court gathered from the said circular that the circular has been issued by the erstwhile State of Bihar on 12/13.05.1971 whereby and whereunder decision has been taken as per the earlier decision of the State Government that the land can be settled in favour of the member of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, other backward community (Schedule-I) and other landless persons who have encroached Gair Majurwa land and who is having 2.5 acres of land in entirety, the same can be regularized but there can be settlement on the basis of Salami. Likewise, the persons belonging to the other categories, if have encroached upon 50 decimals of land, the same can be settled by taking rent and Lagan 20 times. Apart from that, it has also been decided that the land can also be settled in favour of the members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and other backward community (Schedule-I) who have been dispossessed from the Government land having encroached a smaller area of land. The question of applicability of the circular dated 12/13.05.1971 is required to be considered by this Court in the light of the provision of the applicable Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956. The Section 6 of the Act originally contains a provision as under Section 6(1)(c) whereby and whereunder the provision has been made to settle the land if the land has been encroached just adjacent to the agricultural land, the adjacent land can be settled in favour of the encroacher, which would be evident from the provision of the aforesaid Act as under Section 6(1)(c) before its omission, which reads hereunder as :- “6(1)(c) – If any person who together with his homestead does not own more than 5 acres of land, has encroachment up to 10 dec. of public land continuous to his agricultural holding and has used the encroached public land for agricultural purposes. of public land continuous to his agricultural holding and has used the encroached public land for agricultural purposes. The Collector shall order the settlement of such public land with such person on payment of rent and damages for the use of this land. The amount of damages and rent shall be calculated by considering the rent payable in case of similar land in the neighbourhood. Where no rent is payable the rent and damages for the encroached public land shall be calculated on the basis of such fair rent as the Collector may deem proper, or” It is, thus, evident that if any person who together with homestead does not own more than 5 acres of land, has encroached up to 10 decimal of public land continuous to his agricultural holding and has used the encroached public land for agricultural purposes, the Collector shall order the settlement of such public land with such person on payment of rent and damages for the use of this land. The provision as contained as under Sub-Section (1)(c) of Section 6 of the Act has been omitted by virtue of Amendment Act, 17 of 2012. 7. This Court is now proceeding to examine the right of the writ petitioner seeking settlement of the land after dispossession from the public land in course of removal of encroachment. This Court has considered this aspect of the matter from two angles, i.e., when the provision of Sub-section (1)(c) of Section 6 of the Act was in vogue, so as to consider the entitlement of the writ petitioner for settlement. The provision as contained in Sub-section (1)(c) of Section 6 of the Act stipulates that a land can be settled with a person who together with homestead does not own more than 5 acres of land and has encroachment up to 10 decimal of public land continuous to his agricultural holding and has used the encroached public land for agricultural purposes. Therefore, the condition contained therein for settlement of land only in a case when there encroachment up to 10 decimals of public land continuous to agricultural holding and has used the encroached public land for agricultural purposes. Therefore, the condition contained therein for settlement of land only in a case when there encroachment up to 10 decimals of public land continuous to agricultural holding and has used the encroached public land for agricultural purposes. In the instant case, it is the admitted case of the writ petitioner that he is having no agricultural land adjacent to the land encroached by the writ petitioner, rather, the writ petitioner was running a Khatal by encroaching public land and, as such, it is not the case of the writ petitioner that he was having homestead land adjacent to his agricultural land and the land which has been encroached was for the purpose of agriculture. Therefore, this Court is of the view that even accepting that the order of settlement has been passed in the year 2006, the day when there was existence of the provision as contained under Sub-section (1)(c) of Section 6 of the Public Land Encroachment Act, even then the writ petitioner has got no right for settlement of the land. The second question which is to be considered by this Court is that whether on the basis of the circular dated 12/13.05.1971 the public land can be settled in favour of the writ petitioner, if contrary to the statutory provision? It is not in dispute that no circular or executive instruction will be allowed to prevail if inconsistent with the parent Act. The issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of State of U.P. and Ors. v. Babu Ram Upadhyaya [ AIR 1961 SC 751 ] and State of Tamil Nadu v. M/s. Hind Stone etc. [ AIR 1981 SC 711 ], wherein it has been laid down that executive instructions cannot amend or supersede the statutory rules or add something therein, no orders be issued in contravention of the statutory rules for the reason that an administrative instruction is not a statutory Rule nor does it have any force of law; while statutory rules have full force of law provided the same are not in conflict with the provisions of the Act. It is further settled position of law that between executive instruction and statutory Rules, the statutory Rules will prevail as has been decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India and Others v. Sri Somasundaram Vishwanath and Others [ AIR 1988 SC 2255 ], reiterating the same view in the cases of Union of India and Others v. Rakesh Kumar, [ AIR 2001 SC 1877 ], Khet Singh v. Union of India, [ (2002) 4 SCC 380 ], Laxminarayan R. Bhattad and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. [ (2003) 5 SCC 413 ] and Delhi Development Authority v. Joginder S. Monga and Others [ (2004) 2 SCC 297 ], observing that statutory rules create enforceable rights which cannot be taken away by issuing executive instructions. In the case of Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Allahabad and Ors. v. Izhar Hussain, [ (1989) 4 SCC 318 ], it has been laid down therein at paragraph-6 and 8 that a statutory rule cannot be modified or amended by executive instructions. A valid rule having some lacuna of gap can be supplemented by the executive instructions, but a statutory rule which is constitutionally invalid cannot be validated with the support of executive instructions. In the instant case, the parent Act provides, as it was before omission of the provision of Sub-section (1)(c) of Section 6, that the land can only be settled if there is encroachment of 10 decimals of land for the agricultural purpose situated just adjacent to the homestead land and the agricultural land. But, it would be evident from the Government circular dated 12/13.05.1971 that there is no such stipulation making it a condition for settlement of land in case of the land having been used for the agricultural purpose and just adjacent to the agricultural holding. As such, according to the considered view of this Court, relying upon the proposition laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment referred hereinabove, is of the view that no consideration can be made with respect to the claim of the writ petitioner on the basis of the circular dated 12/13.05.1971 and the same is in the teeth of Sub-section (1)(c) of Section 6 of the Act before its omission. 8. 8. The situation as on now is that there is no provision for settlement as was provided under Sub-section (1)(c) of Section 6 of the Public Land Encroachment Act, since the said provision has been omitted by virtue of the Amendment Act 17 of 2012, meaning thereby, after the omission of the aforesaid provision, there cannot be any settlement in favour of the encroacher, rather it would be evident from Section 6(2) of the Act that provision has been made to impose penalty upon the concerned encroacher, in terms of money or by putting the person behind the bar or both. The aforesaid punitive provision as contained under Section 6(2) of the Public Land Encroachment Act apparently clarifies that there cannot be any reward for the encroacher. Such provision has been inserted for the reason that if the land will be settled in favour of the encroacher, every person will encroach the public land and thereafter will claim for settlement of public land. 9. This Court, having discussed the factual aspect as also the legal position, has scrutinized the order dated 08.02.2007 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum East in Misc. Appeal No.36 of 2006-07 as also order dated 07.03.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan) Division, Chaibasa in Misc. Revision No.4/08, wherefrom it is evident that the condition which was required to be fulfilled as per the provision of Sub-Section (1)(c) of Section 6 of the Act, as it then was, i.e., before coming into effect the Amendment Act 17 of 2012, the writ petitioner was not fulfilling such condition. This Court finds it the sufficient reason not to interfere with the impugned order The learned Single Judge has also taken into consideration this aspect of the matter and has declined to interfere with the same. Apart from that, the learned Single Judge has also considered that the writ petitioner has migrated from the district of Bankura situated in the West Bengal and as such, he cannot be said to be entitled for settlement of land. 10. This Court, in the entirety of the facts and circumstances, is of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition declining to interfere with the order dated 08.02.2007 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum East in Misc. 10. This Court, in the entirety of the facts and circumstances, is of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition declining to interfere with the order dated 08.02.2007 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum East in Misc. Appeal No.36 of 2006-07 as also order dated 07.03.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan) Division, Chaibasa in Misc. Revision No.4/08, requires no interference. 11. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.