JUDGMENT : (Devashis Baruah, J.) Heard Ms. BS Goyal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. R. Borpujari, learned counsel appears on behalf of the Revenue Department, Government of Assam and Mr. D. Nath, the learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. 2. Two hundred and seven writ petitioners have joined together to file the present writ petition challenging the eviction process initiated by the Circle Officer, Dhekiajuli Revenue Circle by issuance of eviction notices to them all dated 15.11.2021. In addition to that, the petitioners have also sought for a direction that the land under their possession should be settled by the respondent authorities in terms with the Assam Land Policy, 2019 on the ground that the petitioners are indigenous landless persons entitled to settlement. 3. From a perusal of the writ petition, it is seen, more particularly, at paragraph Nos. 4 and 7 that only details have been given, in so far as the petitioner Nos. 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9 and 10, but the writ petition is, otherwise, silent in respect to the credentials of the other writ petitioners. It is further seen that in Annexure-A series and Annexure-B series to the writ petition Voter Cards as well as NRC extracts have been enclosed. This Court has duly perused the Annexure-A Voter cards, wherein addresses have been duly mentioned of the respective petitioners. However, it is seen that it is only in respect of some of the petitioners it has been shown that their addresses are at Chitalmari Non-K. It is further noticed that from Annexure-B which are extracts of the NRC, wherein some of the petitioners are shown as residents of village Chitalmari Non-K. This Court has also taken note of Annexure-C to the writ petition, which are some of the revenue receipts pertaining to payment of penalty on account of occupation of Government lands (Touzi Bahira) and there appears to be no correlation specifically in the pleadings with those documents. Annexure-D are some of the eviction notices dated 15.11.2021 which the petitioners have challenged pertaining to the initiation of the eviction proceeding initiated under Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, 1886 (for short ‘the Regulations’). 4. In addition to that, this Court has also perused the affidavit-in-reply so filed by the petitioners through one Bimal Sarkar on 15.03.2024. 4. In addition to that, this Court has also perused the affidavit-in-reply so filed by the petitioners through one Bimal Sarkar on 15.03.2024. It is interesting to take note of that the deponent of the said affidavit-in-reply is 44 years old as on 15.03.2024 and statements have been made in the affidavit-in-reply to the effect that some of the petitioners or their ancestors have migrated and have been residing in No.3 Chitalmari village between the period 1970-80. To the said affidavit-in-reply, it is further seen that the petitioners have enclosed application filed seeking allotment/settlement under the Basundhara 2.0 Government Scheme and those applications along with the acknowledgment has been enclosed as Annexure-E series. From a perusal of those applications, it transpires that all these application was filed sometime in March, 2023 much after the writ petition filed or for that matter eviction proceedings were initiated. This Court further finds it relevant to observe that the pleadings are silent as to which petitioners had submitted the application for settlement. Be that as it may, the case of the petitioners herein as would transpire from the pleadings is that the respondent authorities cannot evict the petitioners without following the due process, meaning thereby, without adhering to the principles of natural justice. 5. Ms. BS Goyal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that though there has been certain laxity in the pleadings on account of filing the writ petition on urgent basis, but the fact remains that all these petitioners or their predecessors-in-interest have been in possession of the lands since 1970-80 by residing therein and carrying out cultivation. She, therefore, submitted that the manner in which the respondent authorities, more particularly, the Circle Officer, Dhekiajuli Revenue Circle has initiated action by issuing notice dated 15.11.2021 thereby asking the petitioners to vacate without giving any opportunity of hearing and that too, without considering whether the petitioners have a bona fide, claim of right involved to the effect for being considered for settlement requires interference from this Court. The learned counsel relied upon the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3291. The learned counsel relied upon the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3291. The learned counsel further submitted that in terms with the said judgment of the Supreme Court which is now a law within the meaning of the Article 141 of the Constitution, the respondent authorities have to give a hearing to the petitioners as well as also an opportunity to avail other remedies in the circumstance any adversial order is/are passed against the petitioners. 6. In the backdrop of the case of the writ petitioners as mentioned above, let this Court now take note of the stand of the respondents. The stand of the respondents could be seen from the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 2; the affidavit dated 20.05.2024 as well as the interlocutory application so filed and registered as I.A(C)No. 3551/2024. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 17.06.2023 by the District Commissioner, Sonitpur, i.e. the respondent No.2, it was averred that most of the residents were illegal encroachers of Government land falling under No.3 Chitalmari Revenue Village. It was mentioned that the residents were evicted for the purpose of setting up solar plants to generate electricity, which was essential for developing clean energy. It is also mentioned that the eviction was carried out in terms with Clauses Nos.15.1, 15.2 and 15.3 of the Assam Land Policy, 2019. 7. In the subsequent affidavit filed on 20.05.2024, it was mentioned that a plot of Government khas land ad measuring 1000 bighas at No.3 Chitalmari under Borsola Mouza was under encroachment by persons mainly belonging to the Hindu Bengali community and Muslim community for few years by construction of temporary/semi pucca houses whereupon agricultural activities were carried out. It was stated that the said persons encroached upon the Government land without any permission or authority and in violation to the provisions of law. Thereupon eviction notices were issued on 15.11.2021 asking the encroachers to vacate the Government land within 30 days or before, whichever is earlier. It was further mentioned that an eviction drive was conducted on 03.09.2022, much after the eviction notice was issued i.e. 15.11.2021 and prior to the filing of the writ petition. While carrying out the eviction drive on 03.09.2022, 299 families were evicted. Upon enquiry, it was found that 45(forty five) families were landless. It was further mentioned that an eviction drive was conducted on 03.09.2022, much after the eviction notice was issued i.e. 15.11.2021 and prior to the filing of the writ petition. While carrying out the eviction drive on 03.09.2022, 299 families were evicted. Upon enquiry, it was found that 45(forty five) families were landless. Under such circumstances, a rehabilitation proposal for 30 bighas of VGR land at nearby Nisalamari village was recommended. It was also mentioned that the Government vide a letter dated 04.12.2022 had approved for de-reservation and re-reservation of equal quantum of land in the same village Nisalamari, so that this 30 bighas of land which has been identified could be allotted. Further to that, it was also stated that after the land was made free from encroachment, the lands in question were demarcated by putting barbed wire fencing by keeping at several point roads open for ingress and egress. It is relevant at this stage to take note of that this Court sought for a clarification as to how on one hand in the affidavit, it was mentioned that the residents were evicted and on the other hand, it was mentioned that certain areas were kept open for ingress and egress for certain persons to move inside the scheduled lands. 8. Mr. R Barpujari, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue Department submitted that ingress and egress points were kept open for the forty five landless families and their possession has been categorically shown in the map so prepared in reference to No.3 Chitalmari village under Borsola Mouza of Dhekiajuli Revenue Circle. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that from the map enclosed to the affidavit as well as the original trace map, it would be seen that these forty five families are scattered in the vast plot of land and have been identified in the map in black. To that effect, the learned counsel has also referred to the enclosures to the affidavit filed on 20.05.2024, wherein the communications by the Revenue Department for de-reservation and re- reservation of 30 bighas of land as well as the communication of the District Commissioner, Sonitpur have been duly enclosed. In addition to that certain photographs have been enclosed to show how the barbed wires were erected. 9. In addition to that certain photographs have been enclosed to show how the barbed wires were erected. 9. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of the application seeking vacation or modification of the order dated 02.03.2023 passed by this Court, wherein at paragraph 5, it has been categorically mentioned that a plot of land ad measuring 864 bighas 2 kathas, 11 Lechas corresponding to 285 acres located at No.3 Chitalmari village under Borsola Mouza of Dhekiajuli Revenue Circle, Sonitpur was identified for setting up of a 50 MW Grid connected Solar PV Project by the SJVN Green Energy Limited under the supervision of the APDCL with a total contract value approximately 350 Crores and an expected completion date of August 2025. It was averred that the Chief Minister of Assam had on 10.03.2024 laid the foundation stone at the project site. Further to that, it is also mentioned that the said project shall contribute significantly to the power sector of the entire North Bank landscape of Assam. It also transpires from the said application that the land in question was made encroachment free upon carrying out the eviction drive. However, subsequently there has been re-encroachment. It was stated that upon carrying out a field enquiry by the Circle Officer, Dhekiajuli Revenue Circle, it was confirmed that in the project site which was made free after eviction had been re-encroached by around 200 families. Further to that, it was also mentioned that for setting up of a 50 Mega Watt AC solar power project, the total requirement is around 200 acres, as per the thumb rule i.e. setting up of 1 Mega Watt (AC solar power) project requires approximately 4 acres of land. 10. In these backdrop of the respective pleadings, this Court had duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the respondents in detail. 11. Before further proceeding to adjudicate the instant writ petition, this Court finds it relevant to take note of certain aspects which came into light during the course of the hearing. This Court made a specific query upon both the counsels appearing on behalf of the Revenue Department as well as District Administration as to where would these petitioners go if they are being evicted. This Court made a specific query upon both the counsels appearing on behalf of the Revenue Department as well as District Administration as to where would these petitioners go if they are being evicted. The answer to the said query by the counsels appearing on behalf of the Revenue Department as well as by the District Administration is that most of the encroachers had lands else where and taking advantage of the Government land lying unutilized, they have trespassed upon the land and made temporary structures and used it for cultivation. The learned counsels for the respondents also submitted that taking into account the Assam Land Policy, 2019 whereby landless indigenous families are entitled to be considered for settlement, the Government of Assam had reserved 30 bighas of land for rehabilitation of 299 families. Reference was made to Annexure-1 and Annexure-2 of the affidavit filed by the District Commissioner on 20.05.2024. This Court had duly perused Annexure-1 and Annexure-2 and from the said enclosures, it shows that the lands ad measuring 30 bighas would be de-reserved for rehabilitation of 299 families. 12. It is also relevant to observe that the de-reservation process had not yet culminated. Further there is no specific allotment made in respect to the 299 families to be rehabilitated. Under such circumstances, the question, therefore, arises as to whether if these families are to be evicted without there being any specific allotment assigning specific area to the families concerned, would it be possible for them to reside in the said area, without any disturbance from the State authorities in future. This, in the opinion of this Court is a relevant consideration which needs to be duly taken note of while adjudicating the instant writ petition. 13. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court take note of the disputes. The question which arises before this Court is as regards the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in the present facts. From the materials on record, it transpires that the land in question which is the subject matter of the present litigation is a Government land. It is also an admitted fact as could be seen from the notices which were issued on 15.11.2021 and the admission in the affidavits to the effect that there was eviction carried out on 03.09.2022 that the land in question was under the occupation of various persons. It is also an admitted fact as could be seen from the notices which were issued on 15.11.2021 and the admission in the affidavits to the effect that there was eviction carried out on 03.09.2022 that the land in question was under the occupation of various persons. There is also no quarrel with the fact that these persons who were in occupation of the government land had not occupied either with any permission or on the basis of any lease which was granted. It is also seen that the writ petition as well as the affidavit in reply lacks clarity in the respective interest of the petitioners to the lands in question. There is no mention in the pleadings of the petitioners in how much land they were in occupation and on what basis. The vagueness in the pleadings of the petitioners have made it impossible to decide the entitlement of the petitioners in respect to the area of land under their occupation as well as whether they have any bona fide claim of right involved. It is also seen that the notices for eviction were issued on 15.11.2021 and the eviction was carried out on 03.09.2022. There is/are no materials placed before this Court that they had submitted any representation or reply during this period from the date of receipt of the notice till the eviction. 14. While adjudicating the writ petition, this Court also cannot be unmindful of the rights of the Government in respect to the Government lands as well as the statutory injunctions stipulated in the Regulations as well as the Settlement Rules in respect to the prohibition in the occupation of the Government lands without permission or lease. It is also very pertinent to note that the petitioners have miserably failed to show that they have any bona fide claim of right involved. Another important aspect is that the State Government had earmarked the land ad measuring 864 bighas for setting up of the Solar Plant and the right of the State Government to do so in its land cannot also be brushed aside. This Court is also aware of the fact that delay in execution of the project would also lead to escalation in costs, which in turn would have an impact on the Public Exchequer. This Court is also aware of the fact that delay in execution of the project would also lead to escalation in costs, which in turn would have an impact on the Public Exchequer. Another consideration which have a bearing on the dispute is that on account of encroachment in certain pockets of the vast plot of land ad measuring 864 bighas have resulted in stalling the erection and execution of the project. 15. Be that as it may, it cannot be lost sight of that when a litigant approaches this Court invoking its high prerogative writ jurisdiction with a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution alleging that the impugned State actions are in breach of the fundamental rights and claims that the breach be bridged by issuing of appropriate writ, order/directions as distinguished from a claim for enforcement of a statutory right, it partakes the character of a duty cast upon this Court to enforce the right breached as the guardians of the Constitution. The breach so alleged in the writ petition amounts to a breach of Article 21 of the Constitution on the basis of violation of the principles of natural justice which as per the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1978 SC 597 was held to be a part of Article 21 of the Constitution. Apart from that, the respective pleadings also show that there are families who are landless which the State Government had taken due notice and as such had proposed to de-reserve a plot of land of 30 Bighas for the rehabilitation. 16. This Court is of the opinion that in order to balance the interest of the landless indigenous families and the competing claims of the State Government, certain appropriate writ, directions and orders are required to be passed. 17. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed off with the following observation(s) and direction(s): (i) The Petitioners in the instant writ petition have failed to show that they have a right to settlement over the plot of land ad measuring 864 Bighas 2 Kathas 11 Lechas corresponding to 285 Acres situated at No.3 Chitalmari under Borsola Mouza of Dhekiajuli Revenue Circle, Sonitpur. The above observation is based upon the reading of Rules 15 and 16 of the Settlement Rules read with Clauses 1.14 and 1.15 of the Assam Land Policy, 2019. (ii) The Petitioners who are indigenous landless families have a right to be considered for settlement as per the Assam Land Policy, 2019 in respect to other Government waste lands subject to fulfilling the criteria laid down in the Assam Land Policy, 2019. (iii) It is also the opinion of this Court that apart from the present petitioners, other families who were resident prior to the eviction on 03.09.2022 would also be entitled to be considered for settlement of other Government waste lands, subject to fulfilling the criteria laid down in the Assam Land Policy, 2019. (iv) Accordingly, this Court grants liberty to the Petitioners to submit representations enclosing application for settlement already filed or application filed seeking settlement with all credentials with 30 days from the date of the instant judgment. The said representations along with the enclosures be filed before the District Commissioner, Sonitpur. (v) The District Commissioner, Sonitpur is also directed to issue a notice in the Notice Board of his office wherein the representations would be received. (vi) The District Commissioner, Sonitpur is further directed to issue a notice informing all concerned other than the Petitioners in the Notice Board of his office calling them to submit representations along with all documents, if they desire to avail the rehabilitation in the land specifically reserved for that purpose. (vii) The District Commissioner, Sonitpur is directed to give the Petitioners as well as those other persons who submit representations a personal hearing or through their authorized representative. (viii) Upon hearing, the District Commissioner, Sonitpur shall pass appropriate orders to the effect as to whether the petitioners or the other persons who have submitted representations are indigenous landless families of Assam. On the basis of the said opinion, the District Commissioner shall also in consultation with the Revenue Department of the Government of Assam pass appropriate orders allotting certain specific area of land to those indigenous landless families from the land earmarked in Dag No.378 of Nisalamari village, under Borsola Mouza, Sonitpur, Assam. On the basis of the said opinion, the District Commissioner shall also in consultation with the Revenue Department of the Government of Assam pass appropriate orders allotting certain specific area of land to those indigenous landless families from the land earmarked in Dag No.378 of Nisalamari village, under Borsola Mouza, Sonitpur, Assam. (ix) It is further observed and directed that in the circumstance, adversial orders are passed against the Petitioners as well as the other persons, who have submitted representations, the District Commissioner, Sonitpur shall not take coercive action against them for a period of 30 days from the date of passing of the adversial order(s). It is further directed that the orders so passed shall be duly displayed in the Notice Board in the Office of the District Commissioner, Sonitpur. (x) It is further directed that the status quo in respect to the possession of the land as on date shall be maintained till the exercise is completed as mentioned in Clauses (viii) and (ix) hereinabove. (xi) The Revenue Department of the Government of Assam is directed to facilitate all such assistance to the District Commissioner, Sonitpur to comply and give effect to the above directions. 18. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.