JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. K. K. Mahanta, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. K. Bhuyan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. H. Sarma, the learned senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the District Administration. 2. By this common judgment, this Court proposes to dispose of both the writ petitions being WP(C) No.2639/2014 and WP(C) No.2704/2017 as the cause of action in both the writ petitions are interrelated and as the petitioner is the same. 3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that she is a Rayotee (occupancy tenant) under Section 3 (17) and Chapter III of the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971 (for short, ‘the Act of 1971’) in respect to a plot of land measuring 3 bighas 2 kathas covered by Dag No.574/771(Old)/730 (New) of KP Patta No.135 of Revenue Village Paschim Boragaon under Jalukbari Mouza in the district of Kamrup (M), Assam. The land has been more specifically described to the Schedule to the writ petition, i.e. WP(C) No.2639/2014. It is the case of the petitioner that the father of the petitioner Late Biren Borgohain was the original recorded Rayotee in respect to the schedule land since the year 1962 under the original recorded Pattadars, viz. one Khasnur Ali, S/O-Dhanu Ali and Shukhuna Sheikh, S/O- Amir Ali. On the 29.01.2000, the father of the petitioner expired leaving the petitioner as his sole legal heir. On the basis thereof, the petitioner claimed that she acquired the tenancy by way of inheritance in terms of Section 7 of the Act of 1971. The name of the petitioner was also entered in the Khatian being Khatian No.301 in place of her deceased father by affecting due correction in the record of rights. The petitioner thereupon also filed an application under Sections 23 (1) read with Section 24 of the Act of 1971 for acquiring full ownership right of the schedule land by way of paying compensation to the Pattadars as laid down in the Act of 1971. The petitioner thereupon also filed an application under Sections 23 (1) read with Section 24 of the Act of 1971 for acquiring full ownership right of the schedule land by way of paying compensation to the Pattadars as laid down in the Act of 1971. While the said application was pending before the authorities concerned, a notice was issued under Rule 18(2) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 (for short, ‘the Regulation’) stating inter-alia that the petitioner was in occupation of land without authority/sanction as per the report submitted by the Circle Officer, Guwahati Revenue Circle and the petitioner was asked to vacate forthwith failing which the petitioner shall be evicted from the land in accordance with law. The petitioner thereupon filed her reply on 27.12.2013 informing the Additional Deputy Commissioner about the existence of her tenancy rights over the schedule land and submitted copies of the Khatian and the Draft Chitha in order to establish her right, title and interest in respect to the schedule land. Upon such reply being filed, the petitioner averred in the writ petition that the respondent authorities have assured the petitioner upon seeing the reply that no action would be taken. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that upon enquiry being made the petitioner came to learn that the schedule land was acquired by the Government under the Land Ceiling Act without serving any formal notice on the petitioner and her predecessors who have been in occupation of the said land. The petitioner apprehended that the petitioner's possession would be disturbed on account of the said acquisition and the eviction notice so issued, and as such, filed WP(C) No.2639/2014 seeking various reliefs. The reliefs sought for were for setting aside the eviction proceedings initiated against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was a recorded occupancy tenant/Rayotee and further that the respondent authorities should settle the schedule land in favour of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of law and in terms with the Assam Land Policy adopted by the Government of Assam in that regard. The petitioner also sought for interim directions that during the pendency of the writ petition, no eviction proceedings should be initiated against the petitioner by the respondent No.3 in connection with Eviction Case No.46/2013. 5. The petitioner also sought for interim directions that during the pendency of the writ petition, no eviction proceedings should be initiated against the petitioner by the respondent No.3 in connection with Eviction Case No.46/2013. 5. Upon filing of the said writ petition, it is seen that this Court vide an order dated 30.05.2014 issued notice and further directed that the status-quo on the land under Khatian No.301 under the possession of the petitioner should be maintained until returnable date. 6. While the said writ petition was pending, the petitioner was evicted from her possession on 24.03.2017 and being aggrieved therefore filed the second writ petition being WP(C) No.2704/2017 seeking various directions including a direction that the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) should dispose of the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 23(1) of the Act of 1971 within a short span of time. The petitioner also sought for restoration of possession of the land as she was evicted. 7. Upon filing of the second writ petition, this Court vide an order dated 12.05.2017 issued notice. 8. Pursuant to the filing of the writ petitions, it is seen that there were various affidavits exchanged. The petitioner filed an additional affidavit on 27.05.2022 wherein attention was drawn to this Court that the plot of land admeasuring 281.54 Are under Revenue Village Paschim Boragaon was allotted for the Judicial Department for infrastructure development of the Subordinate Judiciary, Assam vide an order dated 10.10.2013. It was mentioned that the said allottee however did not utilize the allotted land within the specific time as prescribed by law and hence the allotment no longer existed and automatically stood cancelled and reverted to the Government of Assam. It was the further case stated in the said additional affidavit that on 04.01.2021, the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) had passed an order in the tenancy petition filed by the petitioner under Section 23(1) of the Act of 1971, and accordingly, the same had been forwarded to the Revenue and Disaster Management Department for necessary approval. In the said order so passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M), it was clearly stated that the petitioner was occupying and possessing the Dag No.704(Old)/1688 (New) of Revenue Village Paschim Boragaon under Jalukbari Mouza which was originated from old Dag No.770/771. In the said order so passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M), it was clearly stated that the petitioner was occupying and possessing the Dag No.704(Old)/1688 (New) of Revenue Village Paschim Boragaon under Jalukbari Mouza which was originated from old Dag No.770/771. It was therefore stated that the respondent authorities had illegally and arbitrarily evicted the petitioner from the said land inspite of a status-quo order. 9. The records further reveal that on 18.09.2023, an affidavit was filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) wherein it was mentioned that the petitioner had applied to get ownership right over a plot of land admeasuring 3 bighas 2 kathas 0 lecha covered by Dag No.704 (Old)/1688 (New) of KP Patta No.135 bearing Khatian No.301 of Village Paschim Boragaon under Jalukbari Mouza as per the provision of Rule 16 of the Act of 1971. It was further mentioned that as per the Draft Chitha, the land admeasuring 3 bighas 2 kathas bearing Khatian No.301 covered by Dag No.770(Old)/730 (New) of KP Patta No.135 in the year 1975-76 was recorded in the name of the petitioner. It was categorically mentioned in the said affidavit that from the report of the Circle Officer, Guwahati Revenue Circle, the land measuring 802.68 Are covered by Dag No. 704 (Old)/1688 (New) recorded was as reserved land of Village Paschim Boragaon under Jalukbari Mouza. It was mentioned that the land from where the petitioner was evicted in the year 2014 was from Dag No.704(Old)/1688 (New) which originated from Dag No.770/771 of the same village. It was also mentioned that the land measuring 802.68 Are under Dag No. 704 (Old)/1688 (New) is a Government land and the same was already reserved for construction of Family Court. But inadvertently it went out of the knowledge of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) and under a wrong notion, a request was made to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue and Disaster Management Department for correction of Dag No.704 (Old)/1688 (New) from the Government land to KP Patta land. 10. The records further show that another affidavit was filed on 30.09.2023 by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M). This affidavit further gives certain clarity in respect to the land from where the petitioner was evicted. 10. The records further show that another affidavit was filed on 30.09.2023 by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M). This affidavit further gives certain clarity in respect to the land from where the petitioner was evicted. In paragraph No.3 of the said affidavit, it was mentioned that the petitioner had applied for granting of ownership right over a plot of land under Mouza Jalukbari Village Paschim Boragaon having Dag No.574/771(Old)/730 (New) measuring 3 bighas 2 kathas covered by Rayotee Khatian No.301 against KP Patta No.135. It was mentioned that the petitioner was a Rayotee under Khasnur Ali and Shukhuna Sheikh who were the owners of a plot of land admeasuring 5 bighas 2 kathas 7 lechas under the same Dag and Patta. Further to that, it was mentioned that after the completion of the settlement operation, Dag No.1763 (New) and Myadi Patta No.605 (New) was created from Dag No.730 (Old) and Myadi Patta No.135 (Old) of revenue Village Paschim Boragaon under Jalukbari Mouza. The said Dag as per the revenue records covers 73.29 Are which is 5 bighas 2 kathas 7 lechas and presently Md. Muzammuddin Ahmed. S/O- Shukhuna and Md. Sebad Ali and Gul Mohammad, both sons of Khasnur Ali, Sayera Khatun, W/O- Muzamuddin and others are the recorded pattadars of the said Patta. It was also stated that during the field verification, it was found that the petitioner had occupied the land covered by Dag No.704 (Old)/1688 (New) which is the Government land instead of Rayotee Khatian land of Dag No.730 (Old)/1763 (New). 11. The petitioner herein submitted a reply clarifying that the petitioner had sought for ownership rights under Section 23 of the Act of 1971 from the land of Khasnur Ali and Shukhuna Sheikh who were the petitioner’s landlords. 12. The materials on record show that the present writ petition was heard by this Court on various occasions in order to ascertain as to whether the petitioner was evicted from the land covered by Dag No.1763 of Patta No.605 or from the Government land in Dag No.704 (Old)/1688 (New). It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner's father was a riyotee of Khasnur Ali and Shukhuna Sheikh and in that respect a Khatian was issued being Khatian No.301. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner's father was a riyotee of Khasnur Ali and Shukhuna Sheikh and in that respect a Khatian was issued being Khatian No.301. The land in respect to which the petitioner had applied for ownership rights under Section 23 of the Act of 1971 is the land admeasuring 3 bighas 2 kathas covered by Dag No.771/574 (Old) and 730 (New) of Patta No.135. 13. It further transpires that when the matter was heard by this Court on 18.11.2024, this Court taking into account the affidavit filed by the respondent No.2, i.e. the Deputy Commissioner dated 30.09.2023 enquired with the Revenue Department on the basis of the submission made by Mr. K. K. Mahanta, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that there was no materials on record which indicates how Patta No.135 became Patta No.605 during the settlement operation. This Court therefore directed the Revenue Department to bring on record the trace map as well as the resettlement operation proceedings in respect to the change in the Patta Number pursuant to resettlement operation. Subsequent thereto, materials were placed before this Court on 10.02.2025, when the matter was heard again. On the basis of the documents which were placed by Mr. H. Sarma, the learned senior Government Advocate, a question further arose that the documents which were placed revealed that Patta No.132 became Patta No.605, but from the documents, it could not be seen as to how Patta No.135 became Patta No.132. Paragraph No.2 of the order dated 10.02.2025 being relevant for the purpose of the instant dispute is reproduced herein under:- “2. The petitioner herein claims right of a khatian holder in respect to Patta No. 135 with the corresponding Dag No. 730 (New) of revenue Village Paschim Boragaon under Jalukbari, Mouza. On the other hand, it is the stand taken by the respondents as could be seen from the materials produced by Mr. H. Sarma, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the District Administration along with the documents that Patta No. 132 became Patta No. 605 and the corresponding Dag No. 730 became Dag No. 1763. The documents which have been produced however do not show the change in respect of Patta No. 135. H. Sarma, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the District Administration along with the documents that Patta No. 132 became Patta No. 605 and the corresponding Dag No. 730 became Dag No. 1763. The documents which have been produced however do not show the change in respect of Patta No. 135. Rather, it appears from the Chitha copy so produced that it is in respect of Patta No. 132 which thereupon became an intermediary Patta No. 102 and subsequently 605.” 14. On 03.03.2025, when the matter was again heard, Mr. H. Sarma, the learned senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the District Administration produced an instruction dated 27.02.2025 issued by the Additional District Commissioner, Kamrup (M) wherein it was mentioned that Patta No.135 became Patta No.132 and the intermediary Patta for Old Patta No.132 and New Patta No.605 is Patta No.102. Taking into account the said stand which was reflected in the instructions dated 27.02.2025 and as it has a vital importance in the adjudication of the proceedings pertaining to the application filed by the petitioner seeking their ownership rights under the Act of 1971, this Court directed the District Administration, Kamrup (M) to file an affidavit in respect to the details mentioned in the instructions dated 27.02.2025. On the basis of the said order passed on 03.03.2025, an affidavit was filed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) on 12.03.2025. Paragraph No.3 of the said affidavit being relevant is reproduced herein under: “3. That, the answering deponent begs to state that on perusal of the Draft Chitha Record of 1957-64 of the VillagePaschim Boragaon under Jalukbari Mouza, Khasnur Ali and Shukhuna Sheikh are found to be the recorded pattadars of Dag No. 574/771(0)/730(N) of K.P. Patta No.135 of village Pachim Boragaon under Jalukbari Mouza and also, on perusal of the Draft Chitha Record of 1975-86 of the Village-Paschim Boragaon under Jalukbari Mouza, Khasnur Ali and Shukhuna Sheikh are found to be the recorded pattadars of Dag No.730 of K.P. Patta No.132. However, no order related to change of K.P. Patta No.135 to K.P. Patta No.132 is found in the Draft Chitha Record of 1975-86. It is pertinent to mention herein that as per field verification done by the concerned Circle Officer, the petitioner is under possession of land covered by Dag No. 704(O)/1688(N) instead of 730(0)/1763(N). However, no order related to change of K.P. Patta No.135 to K.P. Patta No.132 is found in the Draft Chitha Record of 1975-86. It is pertinent to mention herein that as per field verification done by the concerned Circle Officer, the petitioner is under possession of land covered by Dag No. 704(O)/1688(N) instead of 730(0)/1763(N). It has also been verified that Patta No. 605 is evolved from old Patta No. 132 and Dag No. 1763 is evolved out from old Dag No. 730 of Village-Paschim Boragaon under Jalukbari Mouza. It is further observed from the old map of Village Pachim Boragaon under Ramcharani Mouza, the two (2) Dag Nos.730 (O) and the Govt. Dag No.704 (O) and adjacent plot of land.” 15. The affidavit filed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) and the materials on record read along with it would show the following:- (a) In the Draft Chitha record of 1957-64 of Village Paschim Boragaon under Jalukbari Mouza, Khasnur Ali and Shukhuna Sheikh were found to be recorded Pattadars of Dag No.575 (Old)/771 (Old)/730 (New) of KP Patta No.135 of Village Paschim Boragaon under Jalukbari Mouza. (b) In the Draft Chitha record of 1975-86 of Village Paschim Boragaon under Jalukbari Mouza, the names of Khasnur Ali and Shukhuna Sheikh are found to be recorded Pattadars of Dag No.730 of KP Patta No.132 as admitted by the Revenue Authorities. (c) Although there is no order related to change of KP Patta No.135 to KP Patta No.132, but the logical conclusion one can reach is Patta No.135 became Patta No.132 as admitted by the Revenue Authorities. (d) The petitioner was in possession of land covered by Dag No.704 (Old)/1688 (New) and not Dag No.730 (Old)/1763 (New) of Patta No.132 when the petitioner was evicted and the rights in respect to Khatian No.301 was in relation to land in Dag No.730 (Old)/1763 (New) of Patta No.132 (Old)605 (New). (e) Patta No.605 is evolved out of Old Patta No.132 and Dag No.1763 is evolved out of Old Dag No.730 of Village Paschim Boragaon under Jalukbari Mouza. (f) The land in Dag No.730 (Old) of Patta No.132 and the Government Dag No.704 (Old) are adjacent lands. 16. (e) Patta No.605 is evolved out of Old Patta No.132 and Dag No.1763 is evolved out of Old Dag No.730 of Village Paschim Boragaon under Jalukbari Mouza. (f) The land in Dag No.730 (Old) of Patta No.132 and the Government Dag No.704 (Old) are adjacent lands. 16. In view of the said analysis on the basis of the affidavits and taking into account the limited scope of factual adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court arrives at the conclusion that the petitioner herein was evicted from the Government land bearing Dag No.704 (Old)/1688 (New) whereupon the petitioner had no right on the basis of Khatian No.301. It is further clear from the materials on record that the claim of the petitioner which is based upon Khatian No.301 pertains to Dag No.730 (Old)/1763 (New) and included in Patta No.132 (Old)/605 (New) of Village Paschim Boragaon under Jalukbari Mouza. Therefore, the question of interference as sought for in WP(C) No.2639/2014 by the petitioner against the action of the State is not warranted. 17. This Court further observes that taking into account the application filed by the petitioner under Section 23 of the Act of 1971 is still pending, the respondent No.2, i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) shall dispose of the said application at the earliest and preferably within 6 (six) months from the date a certified copy of this instant judgment is submitted before the respondent No.2 after duly taking into account the observations made as regards the rights of the petitioner which is based upon Khatian No.301 has to be understood to be in relation to land admeasuring 3 bighas 2 kathas covered by Dag No.730 (Old)/1763 (New) and included in Patta No.132 (Old)/605 (New)of Paschim Boragaon under Jalukbari Mouza. 18. In view of the above observations and directions, both the writ petitions stand disposed of.