JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. 1. Heard Ms. N. Saikia, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned Standing counsel for the Revenue Department, Dr. B.N. Gogoi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Railway authorities, Ms. M. Barman, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent/State as well as Mr. S.C. Biswas, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Railway authorities. 2. All the writ petitions relates to similar facts and question of law and as such all the 4 writ petitions are taken up for disposal together. 3. The claims of the petitioners in the said writ petitions are that the petitioners since 1960 have established a market on an unutilized vacant plot of land beyond the railway boundary by clearing the jungles and developing at their own cost by filling up the earth etc and the petitioners as well as their ancestors have since then been running small businesses till date. The petitioners have also been issued trade licenses from the Hojai Municipal Board. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the petitioners have been earning their livelihood from the small businesses carried out by them in respect to a plot of land covered by Dag No. 465 which as per the petitioners is a Government land. Till the year 2006 there was no disturbance from any quarters. However in the year 2006 the Estate Officer, NF Railway, Lumding initiated eviction proceedings under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short the Act of 1971). The petitioners submitted their objections to the said show cause notices. However, the Estate Officer of the NF Railway passed order under Section 5 of the said act of 1971 for eviction of the petitioners. Accordingly the petitioners filed respective appeals under Section 9 of the Act of 1971 before the District Judge, Nagaon. In all the said appeals, the District Judge, Nagaon set aside and quashed all the eviction orders with a direction to the Estate Officer, NF Railway to ascertain first whether the land in occupation of the petitioners was in fact the Railway land or not and after ascertainment if the land is found to be Railway land then to start eviction proceedings afresh as per the procedure prescribed by law by maintaining proper records. 4. 4. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the said judgment passed in the appeal by the District Judge there was no challenge by the respondent Railway authorities. Thereupon the Estate officer of the NF Railway again issued notices to the petitioners to which the petitioners had also submitted their replies. It is relevant to take note that in the meantime the petitioners ascertaining that the land in question belong to the Government of Assam sought for allotment by filing various representations before the Revenue Department as well as also before the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon. As the Respondent Authorities i.e. the Revenue Department as well as the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon did not take any steps as regards the representations for settlement/allotment of the land in favor of the petitioners all these 4 writ petitions have been filed seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus to direct the State respondents to allot/settle the land in respect to Dag No. 465 in favor of the petitioners. At this stage it may be relevant to take note of that all these applications filed for allotment/settlement are not in terms with the provisions of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 (for short, the Regulation of 1886) and there is no mention in any of the representations as to how much each of the petitioners is seeking allotment. Pursuant to the filing of the writ petition, this Court had issued notice and the respondent authorities including the respondent/Railway have also filed their affidavit-in-opposition in the said writ petitions. 5. During the pendency of the writ petitions various interlocutory applications have been filed on the ground that the Estate Officer of the NF Railway were taking steps to evict the petitioners and as such sought for certain interim directions for their protection till the final outcome of the writ petitions. This Court vide various orders granted protection thereby directing the Estate Officer NF Railway not to disturb or evict the petitioners till disposal of the instant proceedings primarily on the ground that unless and until the core question for determination in the writ petition which is whether the land in question belongs to the Government of Assam or it is the Railway land, the petitioners possession needs to be protected. 6. 6. The respondent Railways have filed their affidavit in opposition wherein they claim that the land covered by Dag No. 465 is the land of the Central Government earmarked for the Railways and as such the respondent Railways have rightly taken action in terms with the Act of 1971 in as much as the said land comes within the ambit of Section 2(e) of the Act of 1971 which defines what is a public premises. It has also been mentioned that in the said plot of land some development activities for public interest has been proposed to be done. Further to that, it is mentioned merely by having a trade license or license fee to the Hojai Municipality cannot confer any right upon the petitioners to encroach upon the public property. 7. To the said affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent Railways an affidavit in reply has been filed by the petitioners as well as also have filed an additional affidavit bringing on record a document issued by the Circle Officer, Hojai Revenue Circle, wherein it has been mentioned that there is no records regarding settlement of land situated at the north side of the Hojai Rail Station under Dag Nos. 465 and 606 in favor of the Railway authority. 8. The respondent No. 2 i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Hojai, had filed an affidavit-in-opposition wherein at paragraph No. 4 it has been categorically mentioned that as per the records available in the office the land in question i.e. Dag No. 465 is shown as reserved in the name of the Central Government (NF Railway). In respect to the RTI reply given by the Circle Officer, Hojai the respondent 2 in his affidavit stated that the Office of the Deputy Commissioner maintains the record of the land which falls under the State Government and as the land in Dag No. 465 was not recorded or settled or reserved in the name of the State Government the Circle Officer under the impression furnished the RTI reply to the applicants stating that there is no record found in the office of the Deputy Commissioner settling the same in the name of the Railway authority. It was also mentioned that from the report of the Latmandal dated 18.7.2016 submitted to the Circle Officer, Hojai Revenue Circle, it transpires that the Dag No. 465 of No. 2 Kismat under Hojai town Mouza is recorded in the Chitha in the name of the Government (Central Government) and in the remark column it has been mentioned that the same is adjoining the railway track and Dag No. 606 is recorded in the Chitha as Government (Central Government) i.e. the railway road and there are no any other office record regarding the settlement of the said land. It was also mentioned that as the land in question i.e. Dag No. 465 is recorded in the name of the Central Government, the Office of the Deputy Commissioner cannot settle the land in question as per the prevailing Rules and Regulations in terms with the representation submitted for settlement dated 27.2.2017. In the said affidavit at paragraph No. 9 it has also been categorically stated that as per the records of the office of the Deputy Commissioner, the land in question is recorded in favor of the Government (Central Government) which implies that the said land in question do not belong to the State Government. To the said affidavit in opposition the Chitha pertaining to Dag No. 465 was enclosed as Annexure-A and a perusal thereof would also indicate that the land has been recorded in the name of the Central Government. 9. In the backdrop of the above facts, the question therefore arises as to what rights does the petitioners have to seek for settlement before the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 or for that matter can the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 at all settle or allot the land which has been already earmarked or settled or which stands in the name of the Central Government. In this regard the provisions of the Regulation of 1886 needs to be looked into. 10. Regulation 29 of the Regulation of 1886 stipulates that the State Government may make Rules prescribing the principles on which the land revenue is to be assessed, the terms for which, and the conditions on which, settlements are to be made, and the manner in which the Settlement Officer is to report for sanction of his rates and the method of assessment. Regulation 32 stipulates as to whom the settlement is to be offered and perusal thereof would show that the Settlement Officer shall offer the settlement to such person (if any) as he finds to be in possession of the estate and to have a permanent heritable and transferable right of use and occupancy in the same or to be in possession as mortgagees of person having such a right. However, if the Settlement Officer finds no person in possession as aforesaid it shall be in his discretion subject to such Rules as the State Government may make under Section 12 to offer the settlement to any person he thinks fit. In the backdrop of the same what needs to be taken into consideration are the Rules under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. 11. Rule 5 stipulates how applications are to be made for lease of waste land. Waste land has been defined in Rule 2(b) meaning land at the disposal of the Government which the Government has not disposed of by lease, grant or otherwise and which is not included in a forest reserve or in a forest proposed to be reserved under Section 5 of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 or in a protected forest constituted under the Rules made under the said Regulation and has not been allotted as a grazing ground under the Rules Section 13 of the Regulation of 1886. 12. A conjoint reading of Rule 2(b) with Rule 5 would show that the application for settlement can be made only in respect to waste land as defined in Rule 2(b) for the purpose of a settlement under the Regulation of 1886. From the definition of waste land, it would be clear that only land which is at the disposal of the Government and as per the Regulation of 1886 the term “Government” would mean the “State Government”. The land presently in question as per the stand of the revenue authorities is a Central Government land and would not fall within the ambit of a waste land as defined under Rule 2(b) and consequently the question of allotment or settlement of the said land under the Regulation of 1886 does not arise in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Consequently all the 4 writ petitions wherein the relief has been sought that a direction be issued to the respondent Nos. Consequently all the 4 writ petitions wherein the relief has been sought that a direction be issued to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to allot/settle the land in respect to Dag No. 465 with the petitioners cannot be granted as the land in respect to Dag No. 465 is not the waste land within the meaning of Rules 2(b) of the Regulation of 1886. 13. At this stage, it may also be relevant to mention that a perusal of the representation dated 10.6.2014 for settlement as enclosed as Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition being W.P. (C) No. 7121/2015 would show that the said application is not in the format as prescribed under Rule 5 of the Rules under the Regulation of 1886. In the said representation what has been stated is that as per the settlement officer of Hojai Sub-Division, the plot of land covered by Dag No. 465 is under reserved land and as such sought for issuance of settlement/allotment order. But the basis of the said application as it appears from the affidavit of the Respondent No. 2 is totally misconceived as the land in Dag No. 465 belongs to the Central Government (N.F. Railway) and as such the question of granting allotment/settlement by the Respondent State Authorities and more particularly the Respondent No. 2 do not arise at all. In that view of the matter, the instant Writ Petition is misconceived on the face of it. 14. Consequently, the writ petitions being devoid of any merits are dismissed. From the above, it would be seen that the land covered by Dag No. 465 being the land of the Central Government (NF Railway) would come within the definition of Public Premises as defined in Section 2(e) of the Act of 1971. Consequently, the respondent No. 4 was justified in issuance of the notices under Section 4 of the Act of 1971. It further appears from the record that to the various show cause notices were issued under Section 4 of the Act of 1971 to which, the petitioners in the instant writ petition have also submitted their show cause reply. It also reveals from the record that no order has been passed to the said show cause notices issued under Section 4 of the Act of 1971 in view of the interim orders passed by this Court. It also reveals from the record that no order has been passed to the said show cause notices issued under Section 4 of the Act of 1971 in view of the interim orders passed by this Court. As this Court has held that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is misconceived and devoid of any merits, the Respondent No. 4 would be at liberty to pass appropriate orders under the provisions of the Act of 1971 and thereupon may take appropriate steps as envisaged under the provisions of the Act of 1971. 15. Before parting with the record and without in any manner affecting the right of the respondent Railway authorities to take steps in terms with the Act of 1971, it is observed that as the petitioners claims that they have earning their livelihood from their businesses carried out from the land in question, the Government of Assam may consider of taking steps for rehabilitation of the said petitioners subject to filing appropriate application under the provisions of law.