JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. J. Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. R Barpujari, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Revenue Department, Government of Assam and Mr. H. Sarma, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appears on behalf of the District Administration, Kamrup (M). 2. In the instant writ petition, the petitioners herein 16 in number have approached this Court challenging the eviction proceedings carried out by the District Administration of Kamrup (Metro) in the purported exercise of powers under Chapter-X of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 (for short, ‘the Regulation’). It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners herein have not been issued any notice, but red colour stickers have been pasted in the houses belonging to the petitioners and under such apprehension, the petitioners have approached this Court. It is the further case of the petitioners that the petitioners though not the owners or patta holders of the land, in question, but they have acquired derivative rights from the owners or patta holders of the land in question, and as such, the summary manner in which the respondents are taking steps to evict the petitioners are in violation of the provisions of Section 165 (3) of the Regulation as well as in violation of the principles of natural justice. 3. Mr. R Barpujari, the learned Standing Counsel, 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. He 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 in so far as such welfare depends upon their having sufficient land for their maintenance. 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. He 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. 4. He 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. 4. The learned counsel for the Revenue Department further submitted that in the instant case, the petitioners herein have no semblance of any right over the lands in question and as such, even issuance of notice to the petitioners would gain no meaningful result. Referring to the pleadings in the writ petition as well as also in the additional affidavit, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue Department further submitted that this is a case where the petitioners could not have claimed any rights over the land in question. He, however, admitted the fact that the Supreme Court in its order dated 03.02.2020 in SLP(C)No.2121/2020 had issued certain observations in the manner in which the proceedings are required to be conducted. 5. In the backdrop of the above submissions, this Court has duly given an anxious consideration to 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 60, 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. 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 165(3) of the Regulation. 6. This Court has also perused the directions 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. 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) 7. From the above order, it is clear that the Supreme Court observed that the Deputy Commissioner must examine the claim of each occupant 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 learned Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 09.12.2019 passed in PIL No.78/2018. 8. It has been submitted by Mr. R Barpujari, the learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue Department, Govt. of Assam that in respect to the land wherein the document has been placed i.e. patta No.191, he has been duly informed that the eviction proceedings is already over on 24.09.2024. He further submitted that he is not aware of as regards the other land, taking into account that only today, the additional affidavit had been filed, mentioning other lands with different locations. 9. 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 14.10.2024 before the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro) along with all their supporting documents. 9. 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 14.10.2024 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. 10. Taking into account the above, this Court observes that till the disposal of the representations by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro) as directed hereinabove, 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. 11. With the above observations and directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.