JUDGMENT : MANISH CHOUDHURY, J. Heard Ms. R. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioners; Ms. P.R. Mahanta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for the respondent no. 1; Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. P.K. Medhi, learned State Counsel for the respondent nos. 2 – 5; Mr. D. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department for the respondent no. 6; and Ms. P. Thapa, learned counsel representing Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development Department for the respondent no. 7. 2. The petitioners, thirty-four in nos., have preferred this writ petition stating that they have a common cause of action in view of issuance of Notices, all dated 04.04.2017, by the Circle Officer, Chaygaon Revenue Circle [the respondent no. 3]. By the Notices, the respondent no. 3 stating inter alia that the petitioners are occupying parcels of land indicated therein which are claimed to be Village Grazing Reserve [VGR] lands, and therefore, the petitioners should vacate those parcels of land or else, action would be taken by the Government to vacate them. 3. The petitioners by referring to a Communication of the respondent no. no. 6 dated 12.05.2017, addressed to the respondent no. 2, have asserted that the petitioners as forest villagers received the eviction notices from the respondent no. 3 and as per records available with the Forest Department, the petitioners were bona fide forest villagers of Kadamguri Forest Village under Milmilia Reserve Forest in Bamunigaon Range. It was further mentioned in the Letter dated 12.05.2017 that Milmilia Reserve Forest was notified in the year 1883 and Kadamguri Forest Village is situated within Reserve Forest as per the Assam Forest Regulation 1891 after notification of the Reserve Forest. The respondent no. 6 further wrote to the effect that the forest villagers are entitled to maintain their livelihood under Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers [Recognition of Forest Rights] Act, 2006 [‘the Forest Rights Act’, for short] within the Reserve Forest area. The respondent no 6 requested the respondent no. 2 to review the issue and to allow the forest villagers to live in their native place till finalization of the process. 4. The respondent no. 3, in his affidavit-in-opposition, has averred that the petitioners are in occupation of parcels of land falling within Dag no. 954, which are categorized as Village Grazing Reserve [VGR] lands, by constructing dwelling houses and by making cultivation. 4. The respondent no. 3, in his affidavit-in-opposition, has averred that the petitioners are in occupation of parcels of land falling within Dag no. 954, which are categorized as Village Grazing Reserve [VGR] lands, by constructing dwelling houses and by making cultivation. It is stated that Bedakhali Jarimoma [Encroachment Fine] had also been realized from the petitioners by the Government. As per the Record, the lands falling within Dag no.954 has been declared as VGR land. 5. What is noticeable from the contents of the impugned Notices, dated 04.04.2017 issued by the respondent no. 3 is that the same is not in conformity with the SETTLEMENT RULES framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation 1886, more particularly, Rule 18[2]. 6. Rule 18[2] of the SETTLEMENT RULES framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, 1886 reads as under :- 18[2] When such person has entered into possession of Government khas land, or Waste land or estate over which no person has acquired the rights of a proprietor, land- holder or Settlement-holder or any land that has previously been reserved roads or roadside land or for the grazing of village cattle or for other public purposes, or has entered into possession of land from which he has been excluded by general or special orders and when further, there is no bonafide claim of right involved he may be ejected or ordered to vacate the land forthwith, and the Deputy Commissioner may sell, confiscate or destroy any crop raised, or any building or other construction erected without authority on the land. 7. A Division Bench of this Court in Salak Uddin [Md.] vs. State of Assam and others, 2024 [4] GLT 857, while considering Rule 18[2] of the SETTLEMENT RULES , has inter alia observed that in respect to the waste land/Government khas land/estate, etc. over which no person had acquired the rights of a proprietor, land holder or settlement holder; a indigenous person who is in occupation of such lands under the disposal of the Government would have a procedural legitimate expectation that before taking any decision to evict him, he would be given an opportunity to explain that he had a right to be considered for settlement over the land in his occupation. This right is, however, subject to a caveat that the occupier/possessor submits application for settlement and the SETTLEMENT RULES and the Land Policy permit such consideration for settlement. The said person would also have a substantive legitimate expectation that he ought to be considered for settlement over the land in his possession in view of the Land Policy, 2019. This is again subject to filing an application for settlement and the Land Policy, 2019 duly permitting consideration of such application for settlement. It may be that the State may have a more profound reason for eviction in respect to the land in possession on public interest. On Rule 18[2] of the SETTLEMENT RULES , the Division Bench has proceeded to hold that prior to initiation of proceedings under Rule 18[2] of the SETTLEMENT RULES , an occupant/possessor of Government lands has to be issued a notice. 8. It is settled that even a trespasser cannot be evicted forcibly. A person is illegal occupation of any land has to be evicted following the procedure prescribed under the law. The right to be heard is to be granted to all claiming possession of land, be it forest land or VGR land. The substantial right of possession can be granted or denied only after affording a hearing by the competent authority. With the impugned notices not fulfilling the prescribed parameters the same cannot pass scrutiny of law. The impugned notices, dated 04.04.2017, are set aside. 9. In view of the conflicting stands as emerged from the Letter dated 12.05.2017 of the respondent no. 2 and the stand taken by the respondent no. 2 in the affidavit-in-opposition, the Forest Department and the District Administration, in the considered view of this Court, shall carry out a joint verification exercise, at first, to find out about the nature of the parcels of land the petitioners are found to be in occupation, more particularly, whether the parcels of land are Village Grazing Forest [VGR] land or within the Reserve Forest areas/forest village. If after ascertaining the status of the parcels of land the petitioners are in occupation, the respondent authorities find that the petitioners are in unauthorized occupation, then appropriate measures shall be taken either under the SETTLEMENT RULES framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 or under the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891, as the case may be, by following due procedure of law. It is observed that, till such exercise of joint verification is complete, there shall not be any coercive action against the petitioners for their eviction. 10. This order disposes of the writ petition. No cost.