JUDGMENT : MANISH CHOUDHURY, J. 1. The petitioners, 3(three) in nos. have preferred this writ petition invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking inter-alia a direction to the respondent authorities not to evict the petitioners from the purported lawful possession of their land without following the due process of law. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are residing at Village-Narainpur, Part-II within the jurisdiction of Hailakandi Police Station, District-Hailakandi. According to the petitioners, they are in possession of a piece of land measuring 2 Bighas, covered by Dag no. 349 and 350 and Patta Nos. 82 and 83, located in Village - Narainpur, Part-II. They have made a claim that they are the owners of the said piece of land by way of inheritance and have been residing there since last five generations for more than 100 years. They have claimed that they have built their residential houses over the plot of land and also have planted trees, etc. According to the petitioners, the occasion to prefer the writ petition has arisen when they came to know from a letter dated 19.02.2018, written by the respondent no. 3 to the respondent no. 4, whereby, the respondent no. 4 was requested to provide adequate force on 24.02.2018 as the respondent no. 3 would be conducting an eviction at Village-Narainpur, Part-II as per the direction given by the respondent no. 2 on 22.08.2007. 3. I have heard Mr. M.H. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. P.S. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue and Disaster Management Department for the respondent no. 1; Ms. S. Sharma, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam of the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 and Mr. R.A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5-39. 4. Mr. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the projections made above, has submitted that the petitioners are in possession of periodic patta land measuring about 2 Bighas, mentioned above. As the petitioners are in possession of the said piece of land for a long duration of time, a process of summary eviction like one sought to be carried out by the respondent authorities in the case in hand, is not permissible in law. Since the petitioners have a bona-fide claim for the said piece of land, there ought to be an adjudication before such summary process of eviction. Since the petitioners have a bona-fide claim for the said piece of land, there ought to be an adjudication before such summary process of eviction. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners are in possession of the parcels of land for a short duration of time as the respondent authorities have admitted that the petitioners are in possession of the piece of land for a duration of 30 years. In such view of the matter, any notice served upon the petitioners for eviction from the said parcels of land are liable to be set aside. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance in the decisions in Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. Thummala Krishna Rao and Another, (1982) 2 SCC 134 , Kamala Kanta Deka vs. State of Assam and Others, 1983 (2) GLR 258 and Dhunseri Petrochem and Tea Ltd. vs. State of Assam and Others, 2018 (2) GLT 814. 5. Mr. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue and Disaster Management Department for the respondent no. 1 has referred to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 2 to submit that an area of land measuring 15 Kattas 12 Chataks, covered by Dag No. 349 and Patta No. 2nd R.S. located in Narainpur Part-II is Government land as per the revenue records. When encroachment in respect of the said area of land was noticed, notices were served on 20.05.2017 upon the persons who were found in encroachment of Dag No. 349 and Patta No. 2nd R.S. as the same was made reserved for a road. Eviction from the said dag is necessitated for free movement of the common people. It is his submission that when a Government land is recorded in the revenue records for a pubic road, it is public interest which has to prevail over the private interest. 6. Ms. Sharma, learned Junior Government Advocate has submitted in similar lines as Mr. Deka. She has further submitted that the petitioners are found to be encroachers of Government land reserved for public road. To buttress her submissions, she has referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Assam and Others vs. Smt. Radha Kanoo and Others, (1996) 8 SCC 692 besides the documents annexed to the two affidavits-in-opposition submitted by the respondent no. 2. 7. Both Mr. Deka and Ms. To buttress her submissions, she has referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Assam and Others vs. Smt. Radha Kanoo and Others, (1996) 8 SCC 692 besides the documents annexed to the two affidavits-in-opposition submitted by the respondent no. 2. 7. Both Mr. Deka and Ms. Sharma have submitted that there is no violation of the provisions contained in Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. An encroacher is an encroacher notwithstanding his long period of alleged possession over any piece of Government land. 8. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 5-39 has submitted that they are the residents of the nearby areas of that Government land bearing Dag No. 349. The land falling under Dag No. 349 are used and meant for the purpose of a public road and because of the encroachment of a substantial portion of the land falling within Dag No. 349 by the petitioners, the entire community who use that road to commute has been facing immense difficulties over the years. Being encroachers of Government land, the petitioners have no semblance of legal right to be in possession of the same and there is no requirement of any adjudication, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, to evict the encroachers like the petitioners. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance in the decisions in Kundargaon Anti Eviction Action Committee vs. State of Assam, 2006 (Supp.) GLT 400, Mustab Ahmed vs. State of Assam, 2017 (3) GLT 41 and a judgment of this Court passed in W.P. (C) No. 6158/2019 (Taher Ali vs. State of Assam and Others) and other writ petitions, decided on 26.09.2019. 9. I have duly considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials brought on record by the parties through their pleadings. I have also gone through the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the parties in support of their respective submissions. 10. Though the petitioners have claimed that they are in possession of the piece of land measuring 2 Bighas, covered by Dag Nos. 349 and 350 and Patta Nos. I have also gone through the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the parties in support of their respective submissions. 10. Though the petitioners have claimed that they are in possession of the piece of land measuring 2 Bighas, covered by Dag Nos. 349 and 350 and Patta Nos. 82 & 83, located in Village-Narainpur Part-II, the petitioners have not submitted any documents demonstrating their right, title and interest in respect of the said piece of land, save and except two receipts indicating deposits of land revenues (Khajna). The two receipts annexed to the writ petition pertain to the years 2015-2016 and 2017-2018 respectively whereby some amounts were paid against Patta nos. 82 & 83. To support their submissions that they are the owners of the said plots of land and have been residing there since last five generations and for more than 100 years, the petitioners have submitted only those two revenue receipts. There is no other document on record which goes to support the claim of the petitioners for the period earlier to 2015-2016. 11. It has emerged from the Additional Affidavit filed by the respondent no. 2 on 30.11.2021 that on 20.05.2017, notices were served upon the following persons, viz. (1) Salim Uddin Mazumder, (2) Rekman Ali Laskar, (3) Monir Uddin Laskar, (4) Nasad Ali Laskar, (5) Fakar Uddin Mazumder (Petitioner no. 1), (6) Rehena Begum Barbhuiya, (7) Faruk Uddin Barbhuiya, (8) Sahab Uddin Barbhuiya, (9) Ala Uddin Mazumder, (10) Suab Ali Barbhuiya, (11) Salim Uddin Barbhuiya, (12) Sarimul Haque Barbhuiya, (13) Siraj Uddin Laskar, (14) Abdul Wahab Barbhuiya and (15) Abdul Kalam Barbhuiya. 12. The copies of the notices appended to the said additional affidavit go to show that notices were duly served upon the noticees with their signatures on it. The petitioner no. 1 had received two of the said notices under his signature on his own behalf as well as on behalf of the petitioner no. 3. By the said notices, the noticees were informed that a complaint was received from the general public that they (the noticees) had encroached a local road in Narainpur Part II which was causing trouble to the common people who use the road for their day-to-day activities. The noticees were informed that they were in encroachment of a piece of Government land measuring 15 Kattas 12 Chataks covered by Dag no. 349 and Patta no. The noticees were informed that they were in encroachment of a piece of Government land measuring 15 Kattas 12 Chataks covered by Dag no. 349 and Patta no. 2nd R.S. by planting trees and cultivating crops. By the said notices, the noticees were directed to clear the road after receipt of the notices or otherwise, an eviction process would be carried out by the respondent authorities. In their affidavit-in-reply to the said additional affidavit of the respondent no. 2, the petitioners did not deny about receipt of those notices as noticees but a plea has been raised that the notices were vague in nature and did not contain proper description of the land. But the petitioners are found to maintain silence either about the status of the land covered by Dag No. 349 and Patta No. 2nd R.S. or on the point that it is a Government land reserved for a road. 13. From the report of the respondent no. 3 submitted to the respondent no. 2 on 25.05.2017, it is noticed that the office of the respondent no. 3 conducted an enquiry through the land revenue staff and a report to that effect was submitted on 17.05.2017. It is noticeable from the said report that 16 nos. of persons had encroached upon the Government land measuring 15 Kattas 12 Chataks, covered by Dag No. 349 and Patta No. 2nd R.S. at Village-Narainpur Part II, by planting trees and cultivating crops. Notices were served to those 16 nos. of persons who had encroached the Government land reserved for road and despite services of notices, they did not vacate or clear the road. 14. In the report of the respondent no. 3 submitted to the respondent no. 2 on 08.08.2017, the respondent no. 3 has clarified the encroached part of road measure 1056 feet in length and 12.5 feet in breadth. It has also been reported that when the respondent no. 3 was about to carry out the eviction process, the local MLA interfered into the matter on the premise that he would discuss the matter with the local people. It had been further reported that the local MLA was specifically trying to protect the land of the petitioner no. 1 and the petitioner no. 2 despite the fact that both of them had encroached the road by planting trees and cultivating crops over the said Government land. It had been further reported that the local MLA was specifically trying to protect the land of the petitioner no. 1 and the petitioner no. 2 despite the fact that both of them had encroached the road by planting trees and cultivating crops over the said Government land. By his another report dated 16.10.2017, the respondent no. 3 has informed the respondent no. 2 about the interference made by various persons to stop the eviction process in clearing the Government khas land. Another report dated 13.02.2018 of the respondent no. 3 has depicted the similar picture. When on 08.02.2018, the revenue staff along with officials of the Forest Department went to the proposed spot of eviction to assess the presence of forest products, the petitioners obstructed their entrance by saying that they would not allow them to perform their duties until the local MLA settled the matter. Be that as it may. 15. From the trace map annexed to the additional affidavit of the respondent no. 2, it is noticed that the Dag No. 349 is identified as road and a road exists on that Government plot of land. Since it is marked as a Government land and the petitioners have not been able to show by any cogent document that they are the land holders/settlement holders in respect of the Dag No. 349, it clearly goes to show that they are, according to their own statements, in possession of the areas of land covered by Dag No. 349. 16. As the matter of eviction in relation to Government land is to be undertaken as per the provisions contained in Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules framed under Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, it is apposite to refer to the relevant parts of Rule 18 hereunder: “18. Ejectment: (1) Subject as hereinafter provided, the Deputy Commissioner may eject any person from land over which no person has acquired the rights of a proprietor, landholder, or settlement-holder. Ejectment: (1) Subject as hereinafter provided, the Deputy Commissioner may eject any person from land over which no person has acquired the rights of a proprietor, landholder, or settlement-holder. (2) When such person has entered into possession of (Government khas land, or Waste land or estate over which no person has acquired the right of a proprietor, landholder or settlement-holder or any land that has previously been reserved roads or roadside land or for the grazing of village cattle or for other public purposes, or has entered into possession of land from which he has been excluded by general or special orders and when further, there is no bona-fide claim of right involved he may be ejected or ordered to vacate the land forthwith, and the Deputy Commissioner may sell, confiscate or destroy any crop raised, or any building or other construction erected without authority on the land.” Rule 16 of the Settlement Rules is also relevant for the case in hand and the same reads as under: “16. Prohibition to enter into land until issue of lease.-Lease shall issued on written application only and no person shall enter into possession of waste land 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.” 17. A reading of Rule 16 of the Settlement Rule goes to show that no person can enter into possession of any Government land in any area until a lease has been issued to him or otherwise, a written permission has been granted to him by the Deputy Commissioner, pending issue of such lease, to enter into possession of Government land. It is not the case of the petitioners that they had at an earlier point of time, submitted any application for lease for the Government land in question in writing before the Deputy Commissioner in terms of Rule 5 of the Settlement Rules. When a person enters into possession otherwise than as per the provision of Rule 16 of the Settlement Rules, then such person can only be termed as an encroacher. 18. When a person enters into possession otherwise than as per the provision of Rule 16 of the Settlement Rules, then such person can only be termed as an encroacher. 18. The question that arose for consideration in Radha Kanoo (supra) was whether the persons who entered into possession otherwise than in accordance with Rule 16 would be recognised to be a person to have duly entered into possession of the Government wasteland. It has been held that Rule 16 is mandatory in character and the person is entitled to enter into possession of Government land only in two situations, that is, after settlement of the land by way of a written lease granted by the Deputy Commissioner pursuant to a written application; or by a written permission given by the Deputy Commissioner pending settlement. It is only in either of the two events, a person is entitled to enter into possession of Government wasteland and no other person has got any legitimacy. It is deducible from Radha Kanoo (supra) that a person who does not fulfill any of the two characters is a trespasser and the same does not bind the Government as his entry into the Government land is contrary to the provisions of Rule 16. 19. In Kamala Kanta Deka (supra), the petitioner started a tea stall in the verandah of the office of the Superintendent of Police, Kamrup with permission from the authorities. In the year 1974, the then Superintendent of Police permitted the petitioner to use the verandah as a tenant on payment of Rs. 30/- per month which the petitioner used to pay and receipts were issued for such monthly rents. The petitioner had obtained permission from the Superintendent of Police to improve the structure and after such improvement, the monthly rent was enhanced to Rs. 50/- per month. The Division Bench had, therefore, treated the case to be a case of landlord and tenant. The petitioner invested his own money to construct the structure, obtained water connections from the Municipality and constructed a reservoir for storage of water. The petitioner was in possession of the land for about 10 to 12 years and the same were also reflected from the revenue records of the Government. The petitioner invested his own money to construct the structure, obtained water connections from the Municipality and constructed a reservoir for storage of water. The petitioner was in possession of the land for about 10 to 12 years and the same were also reflected from the revenue records of the Government. When suddenly one day a notice under Rule 18(2) the Settlement Rules was served upon the petitioner directing him to quit the place lock, stock and barrel, the Division Bench had held the case, on the basis of the documents produced before the Court, to be a case of landlord and tenant. It was observed that while serving a notice it is desirable for the authority to consider the nature of the claim of the occupier or possessor before taking summary action under Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules. The case of the petitioners in hand is not similar in the case of the petitioner in Kamala Kanta Deka (supra). The petitioners herein have not been able to show any document of credence to support their alleged claim over the plot of land, covered by Dag No. 349 and Patta No. 2nd R.S. which is reserved for a road. 20. In the case of Dhunseri Petrochem and Tea Ltd. (supra), the case of the petitioner was that they were served with notices by the Circle Officer to vacate parcels of Government land measuring 33 Bighas 4 Kattass and 13 Lessas. The appellant was the owner of a tea estate and it retained that plot of land under its occupation since about 100 years. A proposal was made at a prior point of time by the appellants to make over that land in exchange of an equal area from the other lands belonging to the appellant tea estate, in the event it was found that the appellants did not have any right over the said plot of land. The proposal had received due consideration at the hands of the respondent authorities and a report to that effect was also submitted by the concerned Circle Officer. The report, earlier to the date of eviction notice, was submitted by the concerned Circle Officer to the Additional Deputy Commissioner with regard to the proposal for exchange of land. It was at that stage when the proposal for exchange of land was pending, the notice for eviction was served. The report, earlier to the date of eviction notice, was submitted by the concerned Circle Officer to the Additional Deputy Commissioner with regard to the proposal for exchange of land. It was at that stage when the proposal for exchange of land was pending, the notice for eviction was served. Finding that the appellants had made out a case to make a claim over the concerned plot of land being in occupation for more than 100 years, it was observed that an adjudication on the claim of the appellants over the land in question would be necessary by issuing fresh notice and affording opportunity of hearing to the appellants before taking a final decision on the matter. As opposed to such bona-fide claim for exchange of land which was found to be pending at the end of the respondent authorities in Dhunseri Petrochem and Tea Ltd. (supra), there is no proposal in the case in hand. For settlement of any land in favour of the petitioners there is no bona-fide claim on the part of the petitioner over the plot of land covered by Dag No. 349 and Patta No. 2nd R.S. Thus, the decision in Dhunseri Petrochem and Tea Ltd. (supra) is not found applicable in the case of the present petitioners. 21. The decision in Thummala Krishna Rao and another (supra) was in relation to a provision regarding summary proceedings contained in the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905. The bone of contention therein was three parcels of land which were originally parts of lands belonging to the family of Nawab Zainuddin. In course of time, certain lands of the family were cleared by the Government for the benefit of Osmania University. A suit was instituted contending that the three plots of land were not acquired. The suit was dismissed on the ground that one plot was not acquired by the Government and the other two plots were acquired but there was no proof of possession. A proceeding was initiated for summary eviction of the persons who were allegedly in unauthorized occupation of the said three plots in the year 1964. A number of litigations ensued between the parties subsequent to the steps taken for summary eviction. A proceeding was initiated for summary eviction of the persons who were allegedly in unauthorized occupation of the said three plots in the year 1964. A number of litigations ensued between the parties subsequent to the steps taken for summary eviction. It was in that context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had observed that duration of occupation is relevant in the sense that a person who is in occupation of a property openly for an appreciable length of time can be taken, prima facie, to have a bona-fide claim to the property requiring an impartial adjudication according to the established procedure of law. It was found therein that the respondents had a bona-fide claim to litigate and the earlier suit was dismissed inter-alia on the ground of limitation since the respondents was found to have encroached on the property for more than 12 years before the date of the suit. It was after having failed in the suit, the process of summary proceeding was initiated which the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had found to be impermissible. The petitioners are not in position to draw support from the decision in Thummala Krishna Rao (supra). 22. By the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation (Amendment) Act, 1997, sub-rule (2) of Rule 18 had been amended and it was published in the Official Gazette in its issue dated 29.03.1997. The amended sub-clause (2) of Rule 18 has already been quoted above. 23. Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules came up for consideration in Kundargaon Anti Eviction Action Committee (supra) where the petitioner claimed to be in possession for more than 70 years, initially through their forefathers like the claims made by the petitioners herein. It has been observed that unless a lease is granted by a competent authority or permission has been granted by the Deputy Commissioner to occupy any Government wasteland as required under Rule 16 of the Settlement Rules, no person can enter into and possess the said land and if they possess the same, they are to be treated as encroachers being illegal occupiers of Government land and the said character of the encroachers does not change because of long possession of land by any person. The Court has further observed as under: “11. The Court has further observed as under: “11. Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules provides that the Deputy Commissioner may eject any person from the land over which no person has acquired rights of the proprietor, landholder or settlement holder. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules empowers the authority to evict any person who has entered into possession of land that has previously been reserved for roads or roadside land or for the grazing of village cattle or for other public purposes or enter into possession of the land from which he has been excluded by general or special order and when, there is no bona-fide claim of right involved. Such ejectment has to be made forthwith. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules, therefore, does not provide for issuance of any notice before eviction, unlike sub-rule (3) of the said Rule which provides for issuance of notice before eviction from the land not covered by sub-rule (2) of the said Rules. 12. As discussed above, Rule 16 of the Settlement Rules read with Rule 95 of the said Rules prohibit any person from occupying either Government waste land or the Village Grazing Reserve. Rule 16 of the Settlement Rules provides that no person can posses any waste land without lease or any permission from the Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, it is evident that to acquire bona-fide claim of right over the land possessed by a person, he must have a lease in his favour or written permission from the competent authority to possess the same. Unless a lease or permission is granted in his favour, he cannot occupy the land and consequently, he has to be termed as an encroacher and liable to be evicted by virtue of Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules. In the instant case, the petitioner has not been able to show any semblance of right or any document issued by any authority allowing its members to occupy the land which is presently under their possession and, therefore, however long period of possession may be, such unauthorized act on the part of the members of the petitioner’s committee shall not give rise to any bona-fide claim of right to remain in possession and consequently, not evictable by invoking the provisions of Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules. As discussed above, the land is the Village Grazing Reserve, the occupation of which has been prohibited by Rule 95 of the Settlement Rules.” (Emphasis supplied) 24. Following Kundargaon Anti Eviction Action Committee (supra), the Court in Mustab Ahmed (supra), in paragraphs 15 and 16, has observed as under: “15. In the aforesaid premises, this Court is of the view that the petitioner could not make out a case of establishing a legal right over the land in question. In fact, on the other hand, from the materials on the record, it appears to this Court that the land in question is Khas Government land and the petitioner has no legal right over it, inasmuch as the petitioner could not produce any order of settlement or a lease deed by the appropriate authority in respect of the land in question. 16. The petitioner has also raised the question that before the eviction notice was issued, the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing. The aforesaid question had already been examined by this Court as reported in Kundor Gaon Committee vs. State of Assam, 2006 Supp. GLT 400, in paragraph 11, wherein, it had been held that such ejectment has to be made forthwith and the said Rule of 18 of the settlement rules does not provide for issuance of any notice before eviction. In view of the above, the writ petitioner has failed to make out any bona-fide claim as regards his right over the land in question from which the petitioner is sought to be evicted by the Government notice of eviction dated 01.12.2015, inasmuch as the petitioner does not have a legal right over the land nor he is a proprietor or a land holder or settlement holder of the land in question. Nothing could be produced by the petitioner to substantiate that the petitioner has any subsisting right to occupy the land and in such view of the matter, no infirmity can be found in the notice dated 01.12.2015.” 25. The Court in W.P. (C) No. 6158/2019 (Taher Ali vs. State of Assam and Others) took into notice the amendment carried out in the year 1997 in sub-Rule (2) of Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules w.e.f. 21.03.1997 whereby it was inter-alia provided that the encroachers of Government land who did not have any bona-fide claim over the land can be ejected from the land forthwith. The amended Rule 18(2) has expressly omitted the provision for issuance in eviction notice upon the encroachers. By referring to the decision in Kundargaon Anti Eviction Action Committee (supra), the Court has observed as under: “15. From the above, it is clear that the amended provisions of Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules does not mandate issuance of any notice upon persons coming in the ambit of the said sub-rule. The petitioner are admittedly in unauthorized occupation over “sarkari khas and” and it is evident from the materials on record that they do not have any bona-fide claim of right over such land. Such being the position, there was no requirement under the Settlement Rules for the authorities to serve any eviction notices upon any of the petitioners. Notwithstanding the same, the respondents had served notices upon the petitioners granting them 15(fifteen) days time to vacate the land, thereby complying with the principle of Natural Justice.” 26. Reverting back to the facts of the case in hand, it is already noticed that the petitioners have failed to show by any kind of documents that they have any bona-fide claim in any part of the land measuring 15 Katta and 12 Chataks of land falling under Dag No. 349 and Patta no. 2nd R.S. in Village-Narainpur Part-II. The revenue records go to show that the plot of land covered by Dag No. 349 and Patta No. 2nd R.S. has been recorded as Government Khas land and the same is reserved for road. Notwithstanding the claim of the petitioners regarding the possession of any portion of the said plot of land, the petitioners have been found to be in possession of the said plot of land without any kind of permission from the respondent authorities and as such, they cannot be termed in any other manner other than encroachers. The allegations against the petitioners are that by encroaching upon the said plot of Government land reserved for road, the road which is meant for the general public to commute has been narrowed down making it difficult for free movement of the general public who use the road for their day-to-day activities. The allegations against the petitioners are that by encroaching upon the said plot of Government land reserved for road, the road which is meant for the general public to commute has been narrowed down making it difficult for free movement of the general public who use the road for their day-to-day activities. When the public interests for restoration of the Government plot of land reserved for road and for the general public is considered vis-a-vis to the private interests of the petitioners, it is always the public interest which shall prevail, more particularly, when the petitioners have failed to make any bona-fide claim. 27. In view of the discussion made above, this writ petition is found bereft of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the interim order dated 23.02.2018 stands vacated. In the event the respondent authorities undertake any process of eviction to clear the encroached plot of land measuring 15 Kattas 12 Chataks, covered by Dag No. 349 and Patta No. 2nd R.S. located in Village-Narainpur, which is reserved for road, the respondent authorities before carrying out such process, shall ascertain and demarcate the boundaries of the said plot of land. There shall be no order as to cost.