JUDGMENT : Devashis Baruah, J. Heard Mr. R.J. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and Ms. S. Baruah, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. The Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 herein and their family claimed to be residing in the Dag Nos. 568, 573, 582, 613 of K.P. Patta No.62 of Village Kachutali Pathar, under Mouza Sonapur within Sonapur Revenue Circle in the District of Kamrup (M). They claimed that they have inherited the said lands from their father/grand-father and the predecessor-in-interest of Late Mohabbat Ali and Late Uwaidullah Dullah respectively who originally resided within the declared Tribal Belt area of Sonapur (as it was then) as non-Protected Backward Class person since 1923-24 much prior to the notification constituting the said area as the Tribal Belt. 3. The Petitioner Nos. 3 to 6 and their families are presently residing in Dag No.560, 571, 596, 597, 601, 609, 611, 612, 641, 642, 672, 673, 675, 676 and 684 of Patta No.29 upon inheriting the said lands from their father/grand-father and their predecessor-in-interest of Late Khurshed Ali who was originally permitted to reside within the declared Tribal Belt area Sonapur (as it then was) as non-Protected Backward Class who were previously residing in the Belt areas since 1923-24. It is the further case of the Petitioners that subsequently, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners were issued the Khiraj Patta on 11.05.1965. 4. The petitioners have assailed the general notice dated 13.09.2024 issued by the Circle Officer, Sonapur Revenue Circle, Kamrup (Metro) District whereby the land mentioned in the said notices, i.e. Myadi Patta No.1 to 202 and Eksonia Patta No.1 to 87 have been held to be under unauthorized and illegal possession of the people other than the protected Class as per Chapter-X of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 (for short, ‘the Regulation’). Under such circumstances, all the inhabitants of the said land mentioned in the notices were directed to vacate the land within three days of service of the notice. 5. The petitioners herein claimed that they have rights over the land under their possession wherein they were initially issued Annual Pattas in the year 1923-28 and thereupon have been issued Periodic Pattas. 5. The petitioners herein claimed that they have rights over the land under their possession wherein they were initially issued Annual Pattas in the year 1923-28 and thereupon have been issued Periodic Pattas. It is the case of the petitioners that they have rights over the land even before the land were declared to fall under Chapter-X of the Regulation vide the Government notification number RD.75/46/172 dated 27.02.1950, and as such, the summary manner in which the respondent authorities have resorted to evict the petitioners who have been enjoying rights over the land almost for hundred years is absolutely arbitrary, unreasonable as well as in violation to the provisions of Section 165 (3) of the Regulation. It is also very relevant to take note of that in the instant writ proceedings various documents have been enclosed to show that the petitioners have rights over the lands as contented by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned Standing counsel for the Revenue Department per contra, submitted that in terms of the notification dated 27.02.1950, the Revenue and Settlement Department of the Government of Assam under the Orders of the Governor of Assam had constituted the Tribal Belt in terms with Chapter-X of the Regulation. Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned Standing counsel further submitted that Chapter-X of the Regulation is a very special Chapter in order to protect certain Classes who, on account of their primitive conditions and lack of education or material advantages, are incapable of looking after their welfare insofar as such welfare depends upon their having sufficient land for their maintenance. Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned Standing counsel submitted that in terms of Section 164 (A) and 164 (B) of the Regulation, stringent conditions have been imposed keeping the legislative enactment for protection of the Backward Classes. Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned Standing counsel further submitted that once the land has been notified in terms of Chapter-X, there cannot be any acquisition by any other Class other than those Classes falling under Chapter-X of the Regulation. He therefore submitted that if the petitioners have any rights accrued prior to 27.02.1950, they can very well place it before the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro) by submitting respective representations and the said aspect would be duly considered. He therefore submitted that if the petitioners have any rights accrued prior to 27.02.1950, they can very well place it before the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro) by submitting respective representations and the said aspect would be duly considered. In addition to that, the learned Standing Counsel had also referred to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 09.12.2019 in PIL No.78/2018 wherein the Division Bench, had been directed the State Government including the District Administration to take effective steps for protection of the land falling under Chapter-X of the Regulation. 7. Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned Standing counsel further submitted that in pursuant to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 09.12.2019 in PIL No.78/2018, a Special Leave to Appeal was filed before the Supreme Court bearing SLP (C) No.2121 of 2020. The Supreme Court vide an order dated 03.02.2020, had observed that the order dated 09.12.2019 merely was a direction upon the Deputy Commissioner to proceed against the unauthorized occupancy in accordance with law which presupposes that the Deputy Commissioner must examine the claim of each occupants on case to case basis and after recording satisfaction in the light of evidence produced before him, proceed to pass appropriate orders by law. Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned Standing counsel therefore submitted that if the petitioners submit their representations along with the necessary supporting documents, the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro) shall duly consider the same and also provide an opportunity of hearing. 8. In the backdrop of the above submissions, this Court have duly given an anxious consideration to the challenge so made to the impugned notices dated 13.09.2024 and the submissions so made by the learned counsels for the parties. It is seen from a perusal of Chapter-X of the Regulation that by Section 160, an obligation has been cast upon the State Government to adopt such measures as it deems fit for protection of those Classes who, on account of their primitive conditions and lack of education or material advantages, are incapable of looking after their welfare in so far as such welfare depends upon having sufficient land for their maintenance. In terms of Section 161 of the Regulation, a power has been conferred upon the State Government to constitute compact areas in regions predominantly occupied by people notified under the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 160 of the Regulation in Belts or Blocks. It is seen that the notification dated 27.02.1950 has been issued in exercise of the powers under Section 161 of the Regulation. Section 163 of the Regulation stipulates the manner of disposal of land for the purpose of cultivation and Section 164 of the Regulation stipulates about the rights of settlement holders and landholders. In terms of Section 164 of the Regulation, there is a bar on acquisition in a Belt or Block unless such a person does not belong to a Class of people notified under Section 160 of the Regulation or to a person who is not a permanent resident in that Belt or Block. Section 164 (A) and Section 164 (B) of the Regulation were inserted by amendment carried out in 1981 and 1990 respectively in order to make Chapter-X more effective. Section 165 of the Regulation stipulates the manner in which the ejectment and eviction could be carried out. Section 165 of the Regulation envisages different treatment to different Classes of persons who are in occupation of lands falling under Chapter-X. The first of such groups are those persons occupying without authority; the second are those who are annually settled and third those who have been periodically settled. In the case of the first and second group, eviction can be carried out forthwith whereas as regards the third group there is the mandatory requirement to follow the process in terms with Section 163 (3) of the Regulation. 9. This Court has also given its anxious consideration to the submission so made by Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned Standing counsel which seems to be in consonance to the direction so passed by the Supreme Court in its order dated 03.02.2020. The said order is reproduced herein under:- “Permission to file Special Leave Petitions is granted. The principal grievance of petitioners before this court is that peremptory directions have been issued by the High Court which are likely to be construed as having been issued after recording finding of fact that the petitioners and similarly placed occupants in the concerned area are unauthorized occupants. This apprehension, in our opinion, is misplaced. The principal grievance of petitioners before this court is that peremptory directions have been issued by the High Court which are likely to be construed as having been issued after recording finding of fact that the petitioners and similarly placed occupants in the concerned area are unauthorized occupants. This apprehension, in our opinion, is misplaced. For, the tenor of the order which is impugned in these Special Leave Petitions is merely to direct the Deputy Commissioner to proceed against the unauthorized occupants in accordance with law – which presupposes that the Deputy Commissioner must examine the claim of each occupant on case to case basis and after recording satisfaction in light of evidence produced before him proceed to pass appropriate order(s) as per law. We may add that, if that order is adverse to the occupants, the Deputy Commissioner must give reasonable time to the occupants to take recourse to appropriate remedy as may be permissible in law. In other words, the Deputy Commissioner shall decide the proceedings uninfluenced by any of the observations made by the High Court in the impugned judgment and order. It will be open to the Deputy Commissioner to request the High Court to extend the timeline specified in terms of the impugned judgment and order, which request we are certain would be considered appropriately by the High Court. Besides this, nothing more is required to be clarified. These Special Leave Petitions are disposed of accordingly. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.” (emphasis applied to the underlined portion) 10. From the above order, it is clear that the Supreme Court observed that the Deputy Commissioner must examine the claim of each occupants on case to case basis and after recording satisfaction in the light of evidence produced before him, proceed to pass appropriate orders as per law. The Supreme Court further observed that if that order is adverse to the occupants, the Deputy Commissioner must give reasonable time to the occupant to take recourse to an appropriate remedy as may be permissible in law. Furthermore, the Supreme Court also observed that the Deputy Commissioners shall decide the proceedings uninfluenced by any of the observations made by the High Court in the order dated 09.12.2019. 11. Furthermore, the Supreme Court also observed that the Deputy Commissioners shall decide the proceedings uninfluenced by any of the observations made by the High Court in the order dated 09.12.2019. 11. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the interest of justice would be met, if the petitioners herein are granted the liberty to submit their respective representations within 05.10.2024 before the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro) along with all their supporting documents. The Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro) is further directed thereupon to decide the claim of the petitioners by giving them an opportunity of hearing. Thereupon, the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro) shall pass respective speaking order(s) as per the provisions of law. 12. Taking into account the above, this Court observes that till the disposal of the representations by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro) as directed hereinabove and subject to filing the same within the period mentioned above, the District Administration, Kamrup (Metro) shall not evict the petitioners from the present possession of the petitioners, subject to the petitioners showing before the District Administration or for that matter, the officials of the District Administration, Kamrup (Metro) that they are the petitioners to the instant writ petition along with some document(s) to correlate the petitioners’ possession over the land under their occupation. 13. With the above observations and directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.