JUDGMENT & ORDER : MANISH CHOUDHURY, J. 1. Heard Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. N. Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for the respondent nos. 1 & 2; Ms. M. Barman, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 3, 4 & 5; and Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. K. Borah, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6. 2. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred assailing an Order dated 07.03.1992 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Settlement Branch Revenue [Settlement] Department whereby an earlier settlement proposal made in favour of one Sunil Ranjan Dey and his wife, Manjusree Dey conveyed vide the Department’s Office Letter no. RSS.73/91/15 dated 29.10.1991 read with Office Letter no. RSS.73/91/19 dated 07.03.1992 was modified. 3. In order to appreciate the nature of challenge made in this writ petition in the year 2018, it is apt to refer to the sequence of preceding events, at first. 4. The petitioner is the wife of one Sri Sanjay Kumar Dey. The petitioner is the daughter-in-law of Sunil Ranjan Dey [since deceased] and Manjusree Dey [since deceased], as they are the parents of Sri Sanjay Kumar Dey. 5. Late Sunil Ranjan Dey was an employee of Indian Air Force. During his lifetime, he made an application for allotment/settlement of a plot of land for homestead purpose on 22.07.1979 before the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner, Cachar. The jurisdictional Sub-Deputy Collector submitted a Report on 25.07.1979 recommending the proposal for allotment/settlement of a plot of land in favour of Sunil Ranjay Dey. The jurisdictional Land Advisory Committee in one of its Meetings, held on 21.08.1979, passed a resolution for allotment of a plot of land measuring 3 Kathas 15 Chataks at Mouza – Ukilbazar, Pargana – Barakpar, District – Cachar in favour of Sunil Ranjan Dey for homestead purpose on realization of requisite premium on the condition that the land must have to be utilized for the specific purpose for which it would be allotted. 6. It was on 29.10.1991, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Settlement Branch Revenue [Settlement] Department [the respondent no. 2] wrote to the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar District [the respondent no. 3] vide Office Letter no. 6. It was on 29.10.1991, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Settlement Branch Revenue [Settlement] Department [the respondent no. 2] wrote to the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar District [the respondent no. 3] vide Office Letter no. RSS.73/91/15 whereby approval was accorded for settlement of a plot of land measuring 3 Kathas 15 Chataks, covered by Dag no. 256, situate at Mouza – Ukilbazar, Pargana – Barakpar, District – Cachar [‘the subject-land’, for short] with Sunil Ranjan Dey and his wife, Manjusree Dey after realization of due premium. The Government fixed the valuation of the land @ Rs. 2,20,000/- per bigha and it was conveyed that the premium would be realized @ 100% of the valuation of the land. The respondent no. 2 was directed to take the necessary steps and to get the records/map corrected and also to hand over the possession of the subject-land to Sunil Ranjan Dey. Subsequently on 07.03.1992, the respondent no. 2 vide an Office Letter no. RSS.73/91/91-A wrote to the respondent no. 3 conveying the decision of the Government that the premium would be realized at a revised rate of 60% of the valuation of the land @ Rs. 2,20,000/- per bigha and the premium should be realized in two equal installments immediately. 7. On receipt of the approval, the office of the respondent no. 2 directed the respondent no. 5 on 27.03.1992 to hand over the possession of the subject- land to Sunil Ranjan Dey and Manjusree Dey as Sunil Ranjan Dey, had, in the meantime, deposited the first installment of the premium on the 25.03.1992. Subsequently, the office of the respondent no. 3 vide its Office Letter dated 22.04.1992 directed the respondent no. 5 to take necessary steps for issuance of a patta in respect of the subject-land in the name of Sunil Ranjan Dey and Manjusree Dey. 8. On 30.12.1992, the respondent no. 2 in partial modification of the Department’s earlier decision conveyed vide Office Letter no. RSS.73/91/15 dated 29.10.1991 and Office Letter no. RSS.73/91/19 dated 07.03.1992 issued another Office Letter bearing no. 73/91/34 whereby the decision of the Government to make settlement of the Government land measuring 3 kathas 15 Chataks, covered by Dag no. 256 Mouza – Ukilbazar, Pargana – Barakpar, District – Cachar [‘the subject-land’] was conveyed to the respondent no. RSS.73/91/15 dated 29.10.1991 and Office Letter no. RSS.73/91/19 dated 07.03.1992 issued another Office Letter bearing no. 73/91/34 whereby the decision of the Government to make settlement of the Government land measuring 3 kathas 15 Chataks, covered by Dag no. 256 Mouza – Ukilbazar, Pargana – Barakpar, District – Cachar [‘the subject-land’] was conveyed to the respondent no. 3 by adding a condition that there must be provision for keeping ten-feet wide public road to the east of the subject-land and of sixteen-feet wide public road to the west of the subject-land. A trace map showing such provisions for public road was enclosed therewith. It was reiterated that the settlement would be subject to realization of the premium at the revised rate. The Office Letter dated 30.12.1992 further stipulated that the possession of the subject-land should be handed over to the beneficiary after realization of the due premium. 9. The matter of settlement rested in such position for a long time thereafter. Before this Court, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner, as stated in the synopsis of written argument, that Sunil Ranjan Dey expired on 25.12.2001 and Manjusree Dey expired on 08.07.2003. Such pertinent facts are, howeve, not averred in the writ petition. 10. Noticeably, it has been averred in the writ petition that the petitioner became the owner of the subject-land located in Ward no. 25 of Silchar Municipal Corporation by way of purchase from Sunil Ranjan Dey vide Sale Deed no. 3531 dated 29.08.2005. As it has emerged that the Sale Deed dated 29.08.2005 was executed after the death of Sunil Ranjan Dey on 25.12.2001, a query was made by this Court to the learned counsel for the petitioner about the manner of execution of the Sale Deed on 29.08.2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to explain the position by submitting that after his death, the petitioner’s husband, Sanjay Kumar Dey was given a power of attorney by the legal heirs of the original attadars, Sunil Ranjan Dey and Manjusree Dey to execute deed of conveyance in respect of the subject-plot and it was on the strength of such power of attorney, Sanjay Kumar Dey executed the Sale Deed in 2005 in favour of his wife, that is, the petitioner. This Court, for the purpose of this writ petition, is not entering into the legality and validity of the manner in which the subject-land got transferred in favour of the petitioner. 11. After execution of the sale deed, the petitioner stated to have made an application before the Silchar Development Authority for permission for construction of a RCC building and boundary walls on the subject-land. The Silchar Development Authority on 19.09.2005 issued permission for construction of a two-storied RCC building on the subject-land and boundary walls around it by setting the criteria on the basis of the drawings submitted by the petitioner. In pursuance of the permission granted by the Silchar Development Authority, the petitioner undertook the construction works of the RCC building and the boundary walls. 12. According to the petitioner, problem arose in the year 2012 when the authorities from the respondent Silchar Municipal Board [presently, Silchar Municipal Corporation] entered inside the subject-plot forcibly and damaged the boundary walls substantially by making excavation. The said allegation has been categorically denied on behalf of the respondent Silchar Municipal Corporation in the counter affidavit. 13. According to the petitioner, it was then the petitioner came to know about the modification made in the settlement proposal by the Government on 30.12.1992. 14. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 4864/2012. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 4864/2012 was disposed of by an Order dated 27.08.2013 granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the revenue authority with appropriate application agitating her grievance. It was observed that in the event such approach was made, the revenue authority would dispose of the matter taking note of all the facts and circumstances and in accordance with law and an opportunity of hearing should be provided to the petitioner. It was further observed that the petitioner would file the appropriate application within a period of fifteen days and the revenue authority would decide the same as expeditiously as possible. 15. After the disposal of the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 4864/2012 on 27.08.2013, the petitioner submitted an application on 12.11.2014 before the District Revenue Authorities. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Settlement Officer, Cachar and Hailakandi made a joint verification of the subject-plot on 25.08.2015 as per Instruction dated 07.05.2015 of the respondent no. 3. 15. After the disposal of the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 4864/2012 on 27.08.2013, the petitioner submitted an application on 12.11.2014 before the District Revenue Authorities. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Settlement Officer, Cachar and Hailakandi made a joint verification of the subject-plot on 25.08.2015 as per Instruction dated 07.05.2015 of the respondent no. 3. After the application dated 12.11.2014 of the petitioner, the Settlement Officer, Cachar and Hailakandi submitted a Report dated 02.01.2016 reporting that during field verification, conducted in presence of the petitioner’s husband, and upon perusal of the relevant fields, papers, documents, etc., it was found that the area of land measuring 3 Kathas 15 Chataks was allotted/settled by the Government vide Orders, dated 29.10.1991 and 07.03.1992, with subsequent modification Order dated 30.12.1992 with a clear condition that there must be a ten-feet wide approach road towards the east of the subject-plot and sixteen-feet wide road towards the west of the subject-plot. It was reported that the entire process was done with proper information to Sunil Ranjan Dey. It was further reported that on field verification, it was found that though as per Government Orders there had to be a ten-feet wide approach road towards the eastern side of the subject-plot the petitioner during construction of the building had kept overhead iron rods towards the eastern side of the subject-plot for extension of the building towards the approach road. 16. On receipt of the Report dated 02.01.2016, the respondent no. 3 had passed an Order dated 03.05.2016. The Order was as per the direction made in the Orders passed in W.P.[C] no. 4864/2012 and subsequently filed contempt petition, Cont.Case [C] no. 307/2014. In the Order, it was mentioned that a Report was called for and received and the relevant supporting documents were perused. It was further mentioned that upon field verification, it was found that as per Government Order there had to be ten-feet wide approach road towards the eastern side of the subject-plot but during construction of the building, overhead iron rods were kept towards the eastern side of the subject-plot for extension of the building towards the approach road. 17. The petitioner had thereafter, preferred another writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 755/2017 with a prayer to set aside the modification Order dated 07.03.1992. In the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 17. The petitioner had thereafter, preferred another writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 755/2017 with a prayer to set aside the modification Order dated 07.03.1992. In the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 755/2017, reference was made to the Letter dated 02.01.2016 of the Settlement Officer, Cachar and Hailakandi and the Order dated 03.05.2016 of the respondent no. 3 wherein a finding was recorded regarding ten-feet wide approach road towards the eastern side of the subject-land which was allotted in favour of Sunil Ranjan Dey and Manjusree Dey and the encroachment made to the approach road. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner would desire to file an appeal against the same before the Assam Board of Revenue and to file such an appeal, a copy of the Order dated 30.12.1992 would be necessary. It was submitted that in the absence of a copy of the Order dated 30.12.1992, it would be difficult for the petitioner to pursue the matter of filing the appeal before the Assam Board of Revenue. In view of such limited prayer, the writ petition was disposed of by an Order dated 10.02.2017 with a direction to the respondent authorities to provide a copy of the Order dated 30.12.1992 to the petitioner. 18. In compliance of the direction made in the Order dated 10.02.2017 [supra], the respondent no. 3 vide Office Letter no. CRS.8/2017/[WP(C) No. 755/2017]/2 dated 08.03.2017 provided a copy of the Order dated 30.12.1992 to the petitioner. After receipt of a copy of the Order dated 30.12.1992, the petitioner preferred an appeal, Case no. 31 RA[C]/2017 before the Assam Board of Revenue. However, from the copy of the Order dated 13.10.2017 passed by the Assam Board of Revenue in Case no. 31 RA[C]/2017, it can be noticed that the petitioner preferred the appeal against the Office Letter no. CRS.8/2017/ [WP(C) No. 755/2017]/2 dated 08.03.2017 whereby the petitioner was provided with a copy of the Order dated 30.12.1992. The Assam Board of Revenue by Order dated 13.10.2017 after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal with an advice to the appellant therein, that is, the petitioner herein to approach the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner with a petition. Subsequent to the Order dated 13.10.2017 of the Assam Board of Revenue, the petitioner stated to have preferred a petition before the respondent no. Subsequent to the Order dated 13.10.2017 of the Assam Board of Revenue, the petitioner stated to have preferred a petition before the respondent no. 3 against the Order dated 30.12.1992 whereby the previous Order of Settlement dated 29.10.1991 had been modified. 19. On receipt of the application dated 27.11.2017, the respondent no. 3 disposed of the application on 05.03.2018 observing that the respondent no. 3 did not have the authority and jurisdiction to cancel the Order dated 30.12.1992 as the same was passed by the State Government. Subsequent to the Order dated 05.03.2018 of the respondent no. 3, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 20. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the Commissioner, Silchar Municipal Corporation stating inter alia that an Office Order dated 19.01.2019 was passed by the respondent no. 5 for demarcation of the encroached khas land and pursuant to the said Order, the officials of the Silchar Municipal Corporation along with the Land Revenue staff visited the subject-plot and its adjoining places on 24.01.2019. Finding encroachment therein, the public road of ten-feet was cleared of encroachment on that day. 21. It is in the above backdrop, the assail made by the petitioner in this writ petition is to be considered. The main relief sought by the petitioner in this writ petition is for a direction to the respondent authorities not to disturb the possession of the petitioner over the subject-land and not to encroach over the subject-land as approved by the Order of Settlement dated 29.10.1991. After consideration of the relief sought by the petitioner in this writ petition in the afore-stated manner, the relief sought for is found to be one which cannot be granted in the fact situation obtaining in the case. 22. It was on 29.10.1991, the State Government in the Revenue [Settlement] Department conveyed its approval to the proposal for settlement of 3 Kathas 15 Chataks, covered by Dag no. 256, situate at Mouza – Ukilbazar, Pargana – Barakpar, District – Cachar with Sunil Ranjan Dey and his wife, Manjusree Dey after realization of due premium. Subsequently on 07.03.1992, the State Government in the Revenue [Settlement] Department conveyed its approval to reduce the premium amount to 60% from 100% made earlier on 29.10.1991 keeping the same valuation of the land @ Rs. 2,20,000/- per bigha. Subsequently on 07.03.1992, the State Government in the Revenue [Settlement] Department conveyed its approval to reduce the premium amount to 60% from 100% made earlier on 29.10.1991 keeping the same valuation of the land @ Rs. 2,20,000/- per bigha. The State Government, on 07.03.1992, allowed the allottee, Sunil Ranjan Dey to deposit the premiums in two equal installments. Subsequently on 30.12.1992, the State Government in the Revenue [Settlement] Department modified its earlier approval for settlement made in favour of Sunil Ranjan Dey and Manjusree Dey by specifically incorporating the conditions that the settlement of the subject-plot would be made by keeping a public road of ten-feet width towards the east of the subject-land and a public road of sixteen-feet width to the west of the subject-land. A trace map to that effect was also forwarded with the approval dated 30.12.1992. From the approval dated 30.12.1992, it is evidently clear that the settlement process was not complete till that point of time and it was made specific that the process would be completed only after realization of due premium for the subject-plot @ 60% of Rs. 2,20,000/- per bigha. From the approval dated 30.12.1992, it can be noticed that the copy of the Order dated 30.12.1992 was duly forwarded to Sunil Ranjan Dey. It was only after 30.12.1992, the settlement of the subject-land was completed after deposit of the premium amount fixed against the subject-plot. 23. The original settlement holders, Sunil Ranjan Dey and Manjusree Dey survived till 25.12.2001 and 08.07.2003 respectively. The petitioner has not made any whisper to the effect that the said two original settlement holders namely, Sunil Ranjan Dey and Manjusree Dey had made any protest during their lifetimes against the approval for settlement dated 30.12.1992. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is to be presumed that the official acts have been regularly performed. 24. The petitioner herein had stepped into the shoes of the original settlement holders in respect of the subject-plot only in the year 2005 by virtue of a sale deed purportedly registered in the year 2005 in the manner stated above. 24. The petitioner herein had stepped into the shoes of the original settlement holders in respect of the subject-plot only in the year 2005 by virtue of a sale deed purportedly registered in the year 2005 in the manner stated above. When the original settlement holders, Sunil Ranjan Dey and Manjusree Dey despite having knowledge of the approval dated 30.12.1992 did not raise any protest against the Order dated 30.12.1992 during their lifetimes for about twelve years since the approval dated 30.12.1992, it is not open for the petitioner who only entered into capacity of the landholder in respect of the subject-land in the year 2005 to raise such objection against the approval dated 30.12.1992, which had finality after deposit of the requisite premium. 25. In the above view of the matter, no challenge to the Order dated 30.12.1992 is found to be sustainable in law. Consequently, the writ petition is found to be bereft of any merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly ordered. The order of status quo passed earlier passed on 23.07.2018 stands recalled. 26. As a corollary, it is observed that since there has been provision for a ten-feet wide approach road towards the eastern side of the subject-land as per the approval dated 30.12.1992, the said public road of ten-feet width has to be made and kept free of any encroachment. If the position recorded in the Order dated 02.01.2016 of the Settlement Officer, Cachar and Hailakandi and the Order dated 03.05.2016 of the respondent no. 3 as regards existence of iron rods from the petitioner’s RCC building over the public road is in existence on date, then such obstruction/encroachment are to be immediately removed. The petitioner is therefore, granted an opportunity to remove such obstruction/encroachment, if any, created by the iron rods extended from the RCC building of the petitioner over the ten-feet public road within a period of one month from today. In the event the petitioner does not remove such obstruction/encroachment on her own within such period, the respondent authorities, more particularly, the authorities in the Silchar Municipal Corporation shall be at liberty to remove such obstruction/encroachment within a period of one month thereafter. In the event the petitioner does not remove such obstruction/encroachment on her own within such period, the respondent authorities, more particularly, the authorities in the Silchar Municipal Corporation shall be at liberty to remove such obstruction/encroachment within a period of one month thereafter. It is further observed that in the event the petitioner or anyone resists such removal then the respondent authorities are at liberty to take assistance of Police to avoid untoward incident and are permitted to use necessary force to remove such obstruction/encroachment.